Bucknell University

Bucknell Digital Commons

Honors Theses Student Theses

2015

Undressing the Power of Fashion: the Semiotic

Evolution of Gender Identity By Coco Chanel and
Alexander Mcqueen
Sveva Marcangeli
Bucknell University, sm055@bucknell.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/honors_theses

Recommended Citation
Marcangeli, Sveva, "Undressing the Power of Fashion: the Semiotic Evolution of Gender Identity By Coco Chanel and Alexander
Mcqueen" (2015). Honors Theses. 300.
https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/honors_theses/300

This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses at Bucknell Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Bucknell Digital Commons. For more information, please contact dcadmin@bucknell.edu.
  
   103  

 
   iv  

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract .......................................................................... ............................................... viii
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 1: A Semiotic Approach to Gender ................................................................ 7
A. Method of Development Overview ........................................................................ 7
B. What is meant by “Sex” and “Gender”? ................................................................. 8
C. Historically Fashioning a Gendered Approach to Dress ......................................... 9
D. Construction of Gender through Fashion .............................................................. 13
E. When did Clothing become Fashion? ................................................................... 16
F. Proust as a Couturier of Fashion Motifs and Signs in Literature .......................... 17
G. Clothing as a Sign System .................................................................................... 21
H. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 24
CHAPTER 2: Chanel’s Role in Readdressing Sexual Hierarchies ................................. 26
A. The Little Black Dress .......................................................................................... 26
a. How to Conduct a Semiotic Analysis on Fashion Garments .......................... 27
b. Silhouette ......................................................................................................... 29
c. The Color Black .............................................................................................. 31
d. Obscuring Masculine Text .............................................................................. 34
e. Costume Jewelry ............................................................................................. 35
f. String Tie bow ................................................................................................. 36
g. Fabric ............................................................................................................... 37
h. Deconstruction of the Little Black Dress ........................................................ 38
i. Conclusion of the Little Black Dress .............................................................. 39
B. Camellia Dress ...................................................................................................... 40
a. Silhouette ......................................................................................................... 40
b. Silk and Lace ................................................................................................... 41
c. Camellia Flower .............................................................................................. 42
d. Camellia Conclusion ....................................................................................... 43
C. Boyish Look Ensemble ......................................................................................... 43
a. Form ................................................................................................................ 44
b. Leather ............................................................................................................. 45
c. Art Deco Japonsime ........................................................................................ 46
d. String Tie Bow/Ribbon ................................................................................... 47
e. Black Shift Again ............................................................................................ 48
f. Camellia Flower .............................................................................................. 48
 
   v  

g. Boyish Look Ensemble Conclusion ................................................................ 49

D. Availability of Chanel Clothing ............................................................................ 49
E. Prelude into Alexander McQueen ......................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 3: Alexander McQueen ................................................................................. 52
A. Accessibility of McQueen’s Clothing ................................................................... 53
B. Feather Dress ........................................................................................................ 56
a. Silhouette ......................................................................................................... 57
b. The Gray Area of Androgyny ......................................................................... 58
c. Ruffles Used as a Weapon Rather than a Form of Oppression ....................... 59
d. Feathers ........................................................................................................... 61
i. Ostrich Feathers .......................................................................................... 62
ii. Duck Feathers ............................................................................................. 63
e. Feather Dress Conclusion ................................................................................ 64
C. Antler Dress .......................................................................................................... 64
a. Silhouette ......................................................................................................... 65
b. Ruffles ............................................................................................................. 66
c. Lace ................................................................................................................. 66
d. Resin Antlers and Veil .................................................................................... 67
e. Antler Dress Conclusion ................................................................................. 68
D. Spine Corset .......................................................................................................... 69
a. Corset in S&M Culture as a Sign of Female Strength .................................... 70
b. Curled Dog Tail ............................................................................................... 70
c. Spine Corset Conclusion ................................................................................. 71
E. Prelude into Evolution Analysis ........................................................................... 72
CHAPTER 4: Evolution of a Gender Stereotype ............................................................ 73
A. Accessibility of Clothing ...................................................................................... 73
B. Manipulating Culturally Gender Constructed Signs ............................................. 74
C. Silhouettes ............................................................................................................. 76
D. Can a Male Designer be a Feminist? .................................................................... 76
E. Extent to which Signs are emphasized ................................................................. 80
F. Obscuring Masculine or Feminine Text ............................................................... 81
G. Evolution of Femininity ........................................................................................ 82
H. Conclusion of Evolution ....................................................................................... 82
CHAPTER 5: Evolution of Gender Stereotypes .............................................................. 83
A. Evolution of Gender Stereotypes of Femininity and Masculinity......................... 83
B. Evolution in the Extent to which the Fetish Culture was Accentuated ................ 87
C. Evolution in Female Signifiers ............................................................................. 89
D. Evolution in Cultural Norms of Femininity and Masculinity ............................... 91
 
   vi  

E. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 92
WORKS CITED .............................................................................................................. 94
List of Figures

Figures Pages

1.1 Meeting between Louis XIV (1638-1715) and Philippe IV (1605-65) at Isle des
Faisans, 1659. Painted by Laumosnier (French, 1690 - 1725), oil on canvas. Le
Mans, Musée de Tesse. ........................................................................................ 15

1.2 Portrait of Louis XIV, 1701. Painted by Hyacinthe Rigaud (French, 1659 – 1743),
oil on canvas. Louvre. .......................................................................................... 16

1.3 Victorienne Delphine Natalie de Rochechouart Mortemart, Marquise de Rouge,

1788. Painted by Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun (French, 1755 - 1842), oil on
canvas. .................................................................................................................. 16

1.4 Mariano Fortuny, Venise, 1910. Designed by Mariano Fortuny (Italian, 1871 –
1949), stencil velvet gown. .................................................................................. 24

2.1 House of Worth Afternoon Dress, 1892. Designed by Charles Frederick Worth
(French (born in England) 1825 – 1895), silk and cotton. Brooklyn Museum
Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. .................................. 33

2.2 The Little Black Dress, 1926. Designed by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel (French,
1883 – 1971), wool. ............................................................................................. 34

2.3 Chanel “Ford,” 1926. Vogue 1926 edition. ........................................................ 35

2.4 House of Chanel Evening Dress, 1937-38. Designed by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel
(French, 1883 – 1971), silk, rayon, horsehair, linen. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art. ....................................................................................................................... 43

2.5 House of Chanel Evening Dress, 1937-38. Designed by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel
(French, 1883 – 1971), silk, rayon, horsehair, linen. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art. ....................................................................................................................... 45

 
   vii  

2.6 House of Chanel Ensemble, 1956. Designed by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel (French,
1883 – 1971), silk, wool, leather. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ................. 47

2.7 American or European Jacket, late 1930s. Leather. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art. ....................................................................................................................... 48

2.8 House of Chanel Ensemble, 1956. Designed by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel (French,
1883 – 1971), silk, wool, leather. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ................. 51

3.1 Duck and Ostrich Feather Dress, Fall 2010. Vogue. Untitiled, Spring/Summer
Ready-to-Wear 2011. Designed by Alexander McQueen (British, 1969 – 2010)
created by Sarah Burton (British, 1974), duck and ostrich feather. ..................... 60

3.2 One of a Kind Strapless Louis Vuitton Dress, 2012. Designed by Marc Jacobs
(American, 1964) Louis Vuitton Co. (French, founded 1854), silk mousseline and
organza ribbons. ................................................................................................... 62

3.3 One of a Kind Strapless Louis Vuitton Dress, 2012. Designed by Marc Jacobs
(American, 1964) Louis Vuitton Co. (French, founded 1854), silk mousseline and
organza ribbons. ................................................................................................... 62

3.4 White Swan Feather Cocktail Dress, 2008. Vogue. Horn of Plenty Collection,
Autumn/Winter 2009 – 2010. Designed by Alexander McQueen (British, 1969 –
2010), white swan feathers. ................................................................................. 64

3.5 The Prince of Wales Feathers. Digital image. The Official Website of the British
Monarchy. The Royal Household, n.d. Web.
<http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/ThePrinceofWales/Emblems.a
spx>. .................................................................................................................... 65

3.6 Dress. 2005. Widows of Culloden, Autumn/Winter 2006-2007. Designed by

Alexander McQueen (British, 1969 – 2010), Cream silk tulle and lace with resin
antlers. Photograph © Sølve Sundsbø. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ......... 67

3.7 “Spine” Corset. 1997. Untitled, Spring/summer 1998. Designed by Alexander

McQueen (British, 1969 – 2010), Aluminum and black leather. Photograph ©
Sølve Sundsbø. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. ............................................. 71

 
   viii  

ABSTRACT

The use of clothing reinforces gender roles culturally assigned to men and women

by emphasizing individuals’ biological sex and encouraging them to behave in specific

ways based on their sex. However, individuals can manipulate their clothing to challenge

the gender roles assigned to them. 20th century Gabrielle Coco Chanel and 21st century

Alexander McQueen are two designers who have freed women from binding and

restricted clothing, which set women as objects and not as strong assets with

knowledgeable contributions. I use various studies of semiology and sociology through a

gender theory and linguistic standpoint to understand the signs found within these artists’

designs and how they have liberated or restricted gender stereotypes. My thesis attempts

to analyze how the designs of Chanel and McQueen challenge gender stereotypes through

different signs within their historical contexts.

The historical time periods in which the fashion garments were created will be

used in this framework to examine how the time period influenced Chanel and

McQueen’s signs. My thesis solidifies the importance of recognizing fashion as a device

that can be manipulated and molded as a means to break through gender boundaries. I

draw a comparison between the two designers methods of liberation of gender norms and

argue that by observing the liberation of gender stereotypes from two different eras there

has been an evolution. This will allow me to provide an overview of the evolution of

gender stereotypes from one historical context to the other and will permit me to propose

an answer as to where we are revolving around the question of gender today.

 
   1  

INTRODUCTION

“She wore a slipover jersey sweater and a tweed skirt and her hair brushed back like a
boy’s. She started all that.”
Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises (2006[1926])

What do Coco Chanel, Yves Saint Laurent, Jean Paul Gaultier and Alexander

McQueen have in common? They are designers who have challenged ideas on gender

norms. The use of clothing reinforces gender roles culturally assigned to men and women

by emphasizing individuals’ biological sex and encouraging them to behave according to

specific character traits associated with their specific sex. However, individuals can

manipulate their clothing to challenge the gender roles assigned to them. Twentieth

century Gabrielle Coco Chanel and twenty-first century Alexander McQueen are two

designers who have freed women from binding and restricted clothing, which set women

as objects and not as strong assets with knowledgeable contributions. This research

proposes to use various studies of semiology and sociology to understand the signs found

within these artists’ designs and how they have either reinforced or broken gender

stereotypes. Past critics have analyzed the politics of gender role in fashion. Judith Butler

claims that since culture imposes gendered expectations on the clothing deemed

appropriate for women and men, the individual can use clothing that defies gender

expectations to assert personal identity and to critique culture’s values and methods of

enforcing those values. This study will take this a step further and attempt to analyze how

the designs of Chanel and McQueen challenge gender stereotypes of femininity and

masculinity through the manipulation of different and similar signs within their historical

contexts.

 
   2  

If one looks at the work of contemporary fashion designers Tom Ford, Prada and

Versace, one sees that many of their strategies echo what Chanel once did. Chanel never

defined herself as a feminist but rather as one who expressed femininity through the

liberation of women. The way she mixed up the signs of male and female clothing

created a fashion that offered the wearer a feeling of freedom from binding and restricted

clothing, which marginalized women in society and emphasized their gender

stereotypical “feminine” traits of weakness and volatility. Chanel changed the style of

women’s clothes by making them for women’s bodies rather than for men’s eyes. She

allowed women to take on a “boyish look” through her costume jewelry, little black

dress, camellia flower, short skirts, broad shoulders and straight silhouette.

Recent years have seen a massive shift in women’s fashion to accompany the new

wave of feminism. What began in the 1920s with Chanel has given rise to an entire

generation of designers challenging conventional ideas of beauty, sexuality, and

femininity. McQueen was an active feminist who reshaped the female form to challenge

traditional stereotypes of feminine beauty. He states, “I want to empower women…When

you see a women wearing McQueen, there’s a certain harshness to the clothes that makes

her look powerful. It fends people off. It is a very psychological way of dressing”

(Bolton, 60). In his designs, McQueen, much like Chanel, pays careful attention to

women’s capacity for strength, resolve and versatility and redefines femininity through

these traits. What is useful about the idea of liberating and redefining femininity is that it

simultaneously redefines masculinity.

This study will use twentieth century French literary critic and semiotician Roland

Barthes’ theory to approach garments as signs and seek to uncover socio-historic

 
   3  

connotations, manipulation of connotations and repetition. For Barthes, fashion is a non-

verbal communication of clothing that is subjective. Semiotics studies how forms of

social production of meaning are constructed through a system of signs. Meaning is

communicated to us through the interpretation of signs found within the garment system.

It teaches us that through learning to translate signs, we can open our eyes to the

connotation behind the text (Barthes, “The Semiotic Challenge,” 12). What we know

about semiotics is that each sign can be deciphered differently due to the different

degrees of knowledge of the interpreter towards the collection of signifiers. What the

wearer perceives may not be what the creator perceives. Yet there are some commonly

accepted connotations for the signs that eventually are reflected in everyday clothing.

Barthes elaborates on Saussure’s binary linguistic and structuralist model of the

composition of a sign by applying it to the garment system. The signifier is the particular

garment while the signified is the mental representation (Barthes, “The Elements of

Semiology,” 35). For example, within this paper, the six carefully selected garments of

McQueen and Chanel break gender stereotypes of femininity and in turn masculinity.

This mental representation is the signified. The tangible garment represents the signifier.

The sign is the combination of the signifier and the signified, and the sign system is the

larger historical system that secures the meaning of the sign within a chain of signs, or in

relation to other signs (Barthes, “The Elements of Semiology,” 36). What Barthes aims to

uncover is the psychological concept, or sign, of an object and how its meanings

reproduce hierarchies of value and power in historical and culturally specific ways. This

is useful for this study because it will aid in the understanding of signs found within the

garment system and the value they evoke.

 
   4  

The subtext, the signifieds, signifiers, connotations tied to the signifiers and signs

found in the garment system using a semiological approach will then be scrutinized and

interpreted utilizing sociological theorists Diana Crane, Dani Cavallaro and Alexandra

Warwick and Judith Butler in chapters two and three to propose that the garments have

helped break gender stereotypes. Butler’s concept of gender goes against traditional

feminism in that it is a reiterated social performance rather than the expression of a prior

reality. She goes on to explain how individuals are able to escape gender by playing with

the rules that create it in order to claim their own meanings for those social acts. Crane

argues that clothing plays a crucial role in gendering individuals. She claims that

individuals do not choose clothing based on innate gender preferences, but rather are

encouraged to wear clothes that will reinforce the gender roles society encourages them

to play. Crane explains how the structure of clothing reinforces men’s role over women

by restricting women’s bodies leaving little time for meaningful social contributions and

thus symbolizing “women’s exclusion from male occupations and their economic

dependence on husbands and male relatives” (100). Cavallero and areinforce Crane’s

argument by claiming that if clothing can successfully “fashion” the individual by

reinforcing the gender roles required of him or her, the individual may also be able to

challenge those prescribed gender roles through the conscious manipulation of gender-

deviant clothing (42). The preceding sociological theorists and Roland Barthes’

semiology will facilitate the translation of Chanel and McQueen’s fashion garments,

demonstrating that they have helped women of all social strata evade from their

traditional feminine roles, thereby achieving a balance between expression and

repression.

 
   5  

These theories will help situate the historical time period in which the garments

were created. The historical time periods in which the fashion garments were created will

be used in this framework to examine how the time period influenced Chanel and

McQueen’s signs. This study will solidify the importance of recognizing fashion as a

device that can be manipulated and molded as a means to break through gender

boundaries. This study will observe and draw a comparison between the two designers

methods of breaking gender norms and argue that between the two different eras there

has been an evolution. This will allow me to provide an overview of the evolution of

gender stereotypes from one historical context to the other and will permit me to propose

an answer to where we are revolving around the question of femininity today.

Clothing’s function has always been that of a social act rather than a means of

solely protecting or caching nudity. Clothing neither serves to protect nor to adorn but

rather both. Fashion signifies protection of oneself through the adornment of the body

and self. It is a langue not parole, a language not a word, which is created and given

meaning by a group of decision makers, the fashion group, rather then categorized by its

practicality. I chose to study fashion as a mode of communication over any other form

because it offers something that human language has always refused to the linguist, a

pure synchrony between protection and adornment. While synchronous, however, fashion

does maintain a certain level of evolution, ever-changing from year to year but remaining

stable throughout one year.

Some dress scholars focus on the wearer but this study analyzes gendered dress

through the eye of the creator, the designer, by using techniques from sociology and

gender theory to consider instances where gender norms are transgressed or challenged.

 
   6  

This area of study could be analyzed through several different approaches such as

technological, economical, and sociological, but I chose semiological, to study what

designers are trying to say and express to the public through fashion. This study will aim

to communicate that if we can start to understand the meaning behind fashion designs as

a means to influence our own gender understanding, we can better recognize the power

that fashion has on societal gender views and its control over not only individuality, but

culture as well.

 
   7  

CHAPTER 1

A Semiotic Approach to Gender

A. Method of Development Overview

“Clothes make the man, naked people have little or no influence on society,” said

Mark Twain (Johnson, 1927). If this is true, then clothing and therefore fashion’s main

function is to cover up man and manipulate gender. This permits clothing to emphasize or

transform people’s gender by metamorphosing men into women, women into men, and

even leaving gender a mystery through androgyny. Clothing is known for fortifying men

and women’s gender roles by emphasizing their biological sex and compelling them to

behave in specific ways. However, people do have the ability to alter their clothing and

challenge the gender roles assigned to them. Coco Chanel and Alexander McQueen use

clothing to point out the constructed nature of gender and to break gender norms from

their constructs through their fashion designs.

This chapter will elaborate on two approaches that will be used to analyze Chanel

and McQueen’s designs. The chapter will begin by defining the important distinction

between sex and gender. From this distinction, it will then expound on how clothing has

historically constructed gender identities. The first approach it will delineate is a

sociological approach from a gender theory standpoint utilizing Judith Butler’s concept

of “gender performativity” tied in with Thapan’s discussion of deconstruction as tools.

This study will utilize Diana Crane’s research to support Butler’s claim that the clothing

people choose is based on intrinsic gender preferences subliminally imposed on through

 
   8  

cultural norms. Warwick and Cavallaro will be used to extend on how gender

performativity can be consciously manipulated and deconstructed. Lastly, this study will

expand on the linguistic approach used through semiology and its concepts of signs,

signifier and signified, as a means of decoding the garment codes found within Chanel

and McQueen’s designs.

B. What is Meant by “Sex” and “Gender”?

Fashion and clothing are indispensable to the gender transformation movement.

Before deciphering the role of fashion in liberating individuals from gender constraints it

is important to understand what gender and sex truly mean. In our society, sex and gender

are used interchangeably. To a scholar, the word sex is used to denote biological factors,

such as whether one is male or female. The concept of “gender” was not introduced till

recently in 1955 by sexologist John Money. Gender is used to describe a person’s

appearance, behavior, and role based on what culture defines as gender specific traits

based on one’s biological sex. As explained, gender is therefore not a direct indicator of

one’s sexual orientation (Money, 13).

Another factor that should be taken into account when dealing with gender theory

is that sex is not binary. Sex is not black and white; there is not solely a female and male

sex because biologically one could be both. Therefore, if sex is not binary, accordingly

gender, which is grounded on sex, is not binary either (Paoletti, “Fashion, Dress and

Gender”). However, “The history of dress…so far has to be perceived as a duet of men

and women performing on the same stage…the arrangements of each are always being

made with respect to the other” (Hollander, 7). The result of the duet that Hollander

 
   9  

speaks of is the cultural notion of heteronormativity, or society’s need to produce and

reproduce two sexes that are defined by their complementary relation to each other,

therefore leaving no space for any other gender identities aside from female or male

(Lehnert, “Gender”). This study endeavors to show that McQueen and Chanel offer a

solution to the deconstruction of heteronormativity by playing with gender specific

garment codes. For the purpose of this paper, femininity is the characteristics or traits that

are associated with the gender stereotype of being a woman. Examples of gender

stereotypical traits used to describe femininity are emotional, dependent, passive,

sensitive, graceful, innocent, weak and sexually submissive. The traits commonly

associated with masculinity are independent, non-emotional, aggressive, competitive,

experienced, strong, rebellious and active. Clearly, although culture teaches us to abide

by and delineate these stereotypical gender norms associated with men and women, they

are impractical. Every man has some feminine traits and every woman has some

masculine traits. The rising numbers of theoretical and methodological approaches to the

study of gender and sexuality have provided scholars with multiple methods to study

dress. It is for this reason that in order to fulfill research in gender liberation through

dress and fashion it is important to gain some familiarity with the history and recent

works in gender studies.

C. Historically Fashioning a Gendered Approach to Dress

Historically, fashion has functioned in a complex and interesting way to construct

gender identities, specifically feminine identities. Women’s erotic body features such as

arms, busts, hips and breasts have always been emphasized in dress, while women’s legs

 
   10  

have been hidden and ignored for centuries. On the contrary, men’s legs have been

emphasized as their erotic zone. It was only in the twentieth century, through Chanel, that

women chose to go astray and show their supremacy, autonomy and of course

masculinity by showcasing their legs. The same cannot yet be said about males. The role

of fashion in constructing gender identities can be seen as early as the Middle Ages. It

was in this era that fashion became more erotic due to the Oriental influence brought to

Europe that emphasized layered

dresses, sleeves, heightened

waistlines and veils (Lehnert,

“Gender”). It was not until the

seventeenth and eighteenth century

that women began to rebel against

gender norms. In this era they were

given more leeway in their clothing 1.1 1659 Oil Canvas Meeting between King Louis XIV of
France and King Philippe IV of Spain at Isle des Faisans.
and were permitted to borrow Painted by Laumosnier.

aspects of men’s fashion as long as it did not challenge the reigning political and social

order (Lehnert, “Gender”). Evidence of gender code borrowing is noted in men’s wear in

Laumosnier’s 1659 oil canvas (see Figure 1.1). The painting portrays the meeting of King

Louis XIV of France and King Philippe IV of Spain in the mid seventeenth century. In

the painting, Louis XIV is depicted wearing petticoat breeches, lots of fabric, ribbons and

low breeches with lace frills, which was an extremely feminine style of the time (see

Figure 1.2) (Lehnert, “Gender”). The same gender code borrowing can be found in the

June 1786 French Cabinet des Modes journal, where a lady is wearing a masculine riding

 
   11  

dress, or redingote, a waistcoat and even dared to go as far as wearing a tie, or cravat (see

Figure 1.3) (Lehnert, “Gender”).

1.2 1701 Portrait of Louis XIV draped in 1.3 1788 Victorienne Delphine Natalie de
ceremonial robes revealing his lower legs Rochechouart Mortemart, Marquise de Rouge
and calves. Painted by Hyacinthe Rigaud. wearing a cravat and a redingote. Painted by
Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun.

Once the early nineteenth century came around, males no longer felt the need to

adorn their bodies as they began to proliferate within the work place and women became

more confined to the domestic sphere. This was when women’s fashion came to be

pompous and lavished and their bodies invisible under the layers of fabric and frills.

According to Thorstein Veblen, this was due to the increase in husband’s wealth and

success, which led women to conspicuous and overindulgent consumption (Lehnert,

“Gender”).

During the 1920s and 1930s, the adornment of the female body was at the heart of

 
   12  

a range of contradictory beliefs regarding the nature of feminine identity. During the

inter-war patriarchy, fashion was one of the only “welter of experiences and images, that

presented a world beyond the family, domestic service and the locality” for women

(Buckley and Fawcett, 83). Fashion was a critical tool in defining women’s identity as

gender was renegotiated based on women’s changing social, economic and political

power. It provided women with a non-verbal language to contest their oppressive

depictions and to begin to construct new versions of their identities. Fashion became a

cultural artifact, a visual dialogue, of the social, economical and cultural involvement of

women. Gender theorist Li elaborates on this notion by observing that:

“Countless studies of Nineteenth century women and gender have attested to the

pervasive presence in English culture of the separate-sphere ideology which

assigned the private domain of home and family to women and the public arena of

politics, commerce and work to men. In contrast to these ostensibly gendered

sphere, fashionable society appeared not to be gendered” (128).

Similarly, cultural studies scholar Wilson notes on her theory of embodied cognition that

“Fashion became an important instrument in a heightened consciousness of gendered

individuality” (120). Gender borrowing continued into the twentieth and twenty-first

century, as this study will demonstrate through the use of Chanel and McQueen’s

garment codes. The ways that their garments have influenced the construction of gender

identity has yet to be fully explored, but this study aims to offer a number of insights into

the process. From the history and development of clothing as a means of communication,

 
   13  

one can deduce that fashion was and still is a systematic encryption, a transmission, and

an interpretation of social meaning and signs.

D. Construction of Gender Through Fashion

It is important to take a look at the early work of psychologists Ann

Constantinople and Sandra Bem in 1971 involving sex research to truly understand the

study of gender (O’Brien, 30). The findings from their psychological test, the Bem Sex

Role Inventory (BSRI), divided sex into four categories rather than two – masculine,

feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated (O’Brien, 31). The androgynous category

consisted of individuals who combined very masculine and feminine traits, while

undifferentiated individuals had low scores in both categories (O’Brien, 34).

The most influential gender theorist would have to be post-structuralist feminist

philosopher Judith Butler who in her 1990 book Gender Trouble coined the term gender

performativity. Gender performativity explores the idea of gender as an “‘act’ which

constructs the social fiction of its own psychological interiority” (Butler, “Performative,”

279). It has to do with the repetition of oppressive and painful gender norms. “Gender is

an impersonation…becoming gendered involves impersonating an ideal that nobody

actually inhabits” (Artforum, 85). Performativity therefore hypothesizes that gender

expressions are the result of constant negotiations between an individual’s sense of self

and society’s influence and reaction towards that self, in a context of signs and symbols

that are ever changing. Hence, gender roles do not stem from explicit differences between

men and women but rather from repetitive social acts that create gender distinctions and

make them the norm until they are contested. Therefore, even though society forces a

 
   14  

gender binary upon humans at birth, what society cannot do is claim whether a human is

masculine or feminine. “Femininity is an artifice, an achievement, ‘a mode of enacting

and reenacting received gender norms, which surface as so many styles of the flesh”

(Lee, 65). It is only by changing and manipulating the repetition of those acts that a

“subversion of identity becomes possible” (Butler, “Gender Trouble” 145). By

individually manipulating the act of clothing and adorning oneself with repetitive signs

one can challenge the gendered system. Clothing becomes an advantage, not an

obstruction as feminists once used to believe, to portraying gender, not sex, to the outside

world. Coco Chanel and Alexander McQueen follow Butler’s theory of challenging

prescribed gender roles as they seek to break their era’s narrow definitions of gender

through clothing.

Sociologist Thapan in Gender, Body, and Everyday Life elaborates on the

concepts written by Judith Butler stating “that ‘woman’ itself is a term in process, a

becoming, a constructing…an ongoing discursive practice…open to intervention and

resignification” (37). Here, the notion that fashion has the power to construct gender

norms and stereotypes is reiterated once again. Although people focus more on the power

of construction, people must not overlook the power fashion has in the deconstruction of

norms it has historically constructed. This is where Thapan’s theory of deconstruction

aligns with Butler’s concepts. To deconstruct is not only to resist construction of

stereotypical gender norms, but it is also to obliterate gender barriers that have been

created and activate social change.

When exploring the role of fashion in the creation and alteration of gender

studies, we must most notably focus on sociologist Diana Crane’s study in Fashion and

 
   15  

Its Social Agendas. Crane combines social history with focus groups of women to

examine the multiple meanings of clothing and how individuals use clothes to

communicate class and identity. She traces clothing’s economic, social class and

consumer implications in France, England and the United states for the past two centuries

underlying the notion that clothing is about the “social construction of identity” (1).

Crane argues that clothing plays a crucial role in gendering individuals. She claims that

individuals do not choose clothing based on innate gender preferences, but rather are

encouraged to wear clothes that will reinforce the gender roles society wants them to play

(37). She points out that during the Victorian era clothing reinforced the narrowly defined

gender roles deemed appropriate for women and men. She goes on to describe how

“Dresses were composed of several separate garments and enormous quantities of

fabric…These clothes constricted the body and made any form of movement difficult”

(100). Crane explains how the structure of clothing to this day reinforces men’s role over

women by restricting women’s bodies leaving little time for meaningful social

contributions and thus symbolizing “women’s exclusion from male occupations and their

economic dependence on husbands and male relatives” (100 - 101).

Crane notes that fashionable clothes were always utilized to “make statements

about social class and social identity,” but that after fabric and clothing became mass-

produced, "the principal messages were about the ways in which women and men

perceived their gender roles or were expected to perceive them” (16). Crane uncovered

that two styles arose in the late nineteenth century to reinforce this non-verbal resistance:

the dominant feminine style and the alternative style, or androgynous style, that mixed

masculine clothes with feminine clothes. From her research, Crane concludes that for the

 
   16  

last century, women have used clothing as a form of “non-verbal resistance” to

oppressive and constraining sex roles (101).

Fashion theorists Cavallaro and Warwick reinforce Crane’s argument by

considering a Lacanian framework in their book Fashioning the Frame when studying

clothes whereby the depth of a thing can be manifested on the surface by a system of

signs. In turn, this makes a garment an example of the unconscious at work. Warwick and

Cavallaro coined the word “frame” when speaking about dress. They define dress as a

“frame” contending “the limitation of physical visibility via clothing, for example,

parallels metaphorically an intended limitation of psychological accessibility” (28). Much

like Roland Barthes, the authors view clothing as a symbolic language that speaks a great

deal about suppressed feelings or experiences. Consequently, they regard clothing as a

deep surface of the inner psyche that expresses itself through signs. The interpretation of

these signs is subjective. What the wearer is trying to convey may not always be what the

receiver reads. However, when signs are consistently communicated and build shared

understanding amongst a community, they transform from flexible fashion codes to fixed

fashion codes. The authors furthermore support Crane’s claim by asserting that if

clothing can “fashion” an individual by reinforcing gender roles required of him or her,

the individual can challenge the prescribed gender roles through conscious manipulation

of clothing and its gender significant signs.

E. When did Clothing become Fashion?

Until the nineteenth century, there had not been a study or history of clothing,

only an archaeology that allowed historians to understand the mindset of the era by

 
   17  

looking at the clothing. The first signs of research in the field of fashion arose in 1860 by

French scholars and archivists Quicherat, Demay and Enlart who established the principle

method that treated dress as the sum of individual pieces and the garment itself as a kind

of historical event (Barthes, “The Language of Fashion,” 32). The goal was to determine

the garments date of birth and context therefore making dress both a historical and

sociological object. Later on French authors such as Balzac, Baudelaire, Michelet and

Proust would write beautiful pages on the subject and realize that clothing was an

element which involved the being as a whole. This theory is reinforced by Proust in his

1913 oeuvre A la Recherche du Temps Perdu that utilizes clothing as a mean to expose

and cache his characters.

F. Proust as a Couturier of Fashion Motifs and Signs in Literature

From A la Recherche du Temps Perdu, I decided to decipher Albertine’s garment

to demonstrate how clothing was used in early literature as an extension of a character’s

identity. In the novel, the main character and narrator, Marcel, falls in love with Albertine

Simonet. From the start, Albertine makes it evident that she wants a platonic relationship

with Marcel. Conversely, Marcel obsesses over Albertine and begins to suspect that she

may have lesbian relationships. His desire for her becomes even more powerful when she

strays away from him. Marcel keeps Albertine close, hoping to marry her one-day and

keep her a prisoner in his Paris residence. Despite his efforts, the gifts he showered upon

Albertine do not work as she one day runs away and completely vanishes. The novel ends

with Marcel learning that Albertine dies falling off a horse. I chose to decipher her

clothing because a foreshadowing of her death and Marcel’s personal desires are seen

 
   18  

through Albertine’s Fortuny Venetian garment. Furthermore, the signs found within the

Fortuny garment are similar to signs that we will later decipher in Chanel’s mid-twentieth

century garments.

Mariano Fortuny, the man who designed Albertine’s Venetian gown, is a real life

designer from the late nineteenth century to early twentieth century who specialized in

finely pleated silk gowns. Unlike couturier’s, who constantly introduce new silhouettes,

colors and textiles, Fortuny reproduced multiple versions of the same garment with slight

alterations to it (FIDM Museum, “Mariano Fortuny”). Aside from his attention to detail

that acted as an extension of the socio-historical time in which he lived in and the desires

and identities of his clients, he was also well renowned for his extremely difficult

technique of creating permanent narrow pleats on silk gowns, also seen in Chanel’s

1950’s Art Deco gown in chapter two. It was not until his death in 1949, that his well

renowned pleats came to a halt in production. In the novel, Mariano Fortuny acts as

Marcel’s tool of emotional communication. Since Marcel does not have very good taste

in garments, Fortuny is the designer who expresses Marcel’s desires to travel to Venice

from Paris. Marcel cannot leave Paris because he feels forced to control and survey

Albertine. For this reason, he is only able to order clothing for Albertine from Fortuny,

rather than physically go see him.

Albertine’s gown acts specifically as a sign of Marcel’s desire to go to Venice.

When the Venetian Fortuny robe arrives and Albertine wears it, Marcel embraces the

fabric. The signs found within the Venetian Fortuny gown are the coupled birds, the

Carpaccio of Venice, Venice itself, the colors blue and gold, and the multiple layers of

fabric (see Figure 1.4). Therefore the signs within this garment system were categorized

 
   19  

as design. When Marcel sees the birds on Albertine’s dress, he immediately feels that the

signifiers of “ces oiseaux fatidiques” [“those fateful birds”] are suggesting Albertine’s

imminent escape and fleet from his hands (Proust, 871). Birds are known to be a signified

of freedom due to their ability to walk on land, live in the water and fly in the air. Birds

are a signified that are still used today in gowns, as we will see in Alexander McQueen’s

gowns in chapter three, as a signified of freedom.

1.4 1910 Mariano Fortuny, Venise. A soft blue velvet ground stenciled in gold with Medieval style patterns to
recall Venice. The sides are inset with pleated silk, laced with silk cords and fasted with Murano glass beads.

Marcel demands that Albertine spin around for him in Fortuny’s Venetian gown,

draped in his materials as a woman that he can erotically delight and contemplate on

aesthetically. The signifiers of multiple layers and unnecessary frills, decorations,

 
   20  

multiple fabrics and weight of the dress are a signified of rich ostentation, erotic

generosity, exposition, and possession. The multiple layers and frills serve as a way for

Marcel to control and possess Albertine by limiting her ability to move. Through the

restriction of movement caused by her clothing, Marcel imposes a constraint on her

freedom and future escape. The primary purpose of the signifier of the Carpaccio painting

is to create a signified that brings Venice to life. The same can be noted for the primary

colors used for the dress, blue and gold. The colors blue and gold as a signifier evoke the

Grand Canal’s of Venice, whose water is touched by the sun. Once again, the signified

here is that of bringing Venice to life.

Proust ties a lot of Mariano Fortuny’s fashion signs and motifs to various

architecture and paintings. In this context, the gown demonstrates a connection between

Albertine’s gown and the social and historical context of the era. Fortuny designs the

signifer of the Venetian painting the Carpaccio, La Guérison d’un Fou, to evoke “cet

Venise saturé avec splendeur orientale…la lumière de soleil et les turbans autour, la

couleur fragmentée, mystérieuse et complémentaire” [“This Venice saturated with

oriental splendor…the light of the sun with the turbans around the mysterious,

complementary and fragmented color”] (Proust, 871). The painting denotes the influence

of the Art Deco period of the time that carries orientalist influences and a mystery of the

future that lies ahead. “Il était couvert avec des ornementation Arabe, comme les palaces

Vénitienne caché comme les femmes de sultan derrière un écran de pierre percée, comme

les liaisons dans la bibliothèque Ambrosienne” [“[The garment] was covered in Arabic

ornamentation, like the hidden Venetian palaces, like the wives of sultans behind a

perforated stone walls, like the affairs that take place in the Ambrosiana library”] (Proust,

 
   21  

872). Albertine’s form is primarily emphasized with paintings of Venetian structures and

libraries that were considered forbidden to the public at the time. The painting on the

gown is a signified of the mystery and oriental eroticism that lies ahead for the future of

Albertine. Albertine’s dress acts as a sign of Marcel’s desire to go to Venice as well as a

sign of her future escape from Marcel’s constraint as she sets herself free. The allusions

to Albertine and Marcel’s identities, characters and exterior socio-historical environment

are indubitably embedded subtly and indirectly into their designs. The same correlation

will be explored in Chanel and McQueen’s designs in chapter two and three.

Sartre went even further than Proust and treated the question from a philosophical

standpoint claiming that clothing allowed man to “assume his freedom” and represent

himself as he chose, even if what he had chosen to be represented what society had

selected for him (Lehnert, “Gender”). According to Baudelaire, women needed to utilize

fashion to surpass their status as natural beings and be visible to man. Through his

statements such as, “Vive le maquillage!” [“Long live make-up!”] it is evident that he

sees fashion for women as a tool for them to exploit their erotic power to be socially

accepted by men (Lehnert, “Gender”). Clothing was being perceived as a language and a

grammar, as a clothes code.

G. Clothing as a Sign System

It was not until 1916 that Saussure hypothesized a general science of signs, or

semiology, in his Course in General Linguistics that was to be applied solely to

linguistics. Semiotics is the study of how social production of meaning is constructed

through a system of signs (Saussure, 16). The signified and the signifier make up the

 
   22  

components of the sign. The signified is not a tangible object, but rather the mental

representation of the object; it is a plane of content (Barthes, “The Elements of

Semiology,” 35). This mental representation can be deciphered differently according to

the each individual’s degree of knowledge surrounding the object. The signifier is the

plane of expression, or the tangible object (Barthes, “The Elements of Semiology,” 35).

Together, the signifier and the signified are combined through a process called

signification to create a product, the sign (Barthes, “The Elements of Semiology,” 65 –

67). The term symbol is never utilized in substitution for sign because symbol implies an

idea of motivation in creating a sign rather than a natural process. The sign is anything

that carries meaning that is determined by particular codes or systems in which they

appear. Therefore, signs can be read differently and it is through the combination of

signified and signifier that we can open to our eyes to the general meaning behind

objects.

Both Saussure and Barthes were interested in the study of semiotics, the language

of signs. However it was Barthes that took a particular interest in the non-verbal

communication of clothing. Barthes widened the study of semiology to include reading

any system of signs – image, gesture, sound, and object – and combining it with the

association tied to any of those objects to form a language or system of significations.

According to Barthes, the signifier, with reference to clothing was the denotation, or the

clothing code, the clothing, as it appeared to be (Barthes, “The Language of Fashion,”

111). While the signified was the connotation, or the fashion code, the idea that there is

more than meets the eye (Barthes, “The Language of Fashion,” 118). What separates

Barthes from Saussure is his conceptualization that transferring the decryption of

 
   23  

language to clothing proves useful when analyzing historical developments and changes

in dress. Dress had always been analyzed according to the trickle-down-theory of

clothing, where the trend began in the aristocratic class and eventually trickled down to

the lower class (Barthes, “The Language of Fashion,” 5). From this perspective, the only

function of fashion is that of transmitting social status. However, when Barthes applies

Saussure’s distinction between signifier and signified to clothing, suddenly clothing

becomes a transmitter of much more complex signs.

A sign functions and achieves its meaning through its associational and

differential relations with other signs within its code or network known as a system

(Barthes, “The Elements of Semiology,” 58). With reference to fashion code, a garment

system is a set of pieces, part or details, which cannot be worn at the same time on the

same part of the body (Barthes, “The Elements of Semiology,” 25). For example, one

cannot wear a bonnet at the same time as a beanie or a toque. The variation in garment

system corresponds to a change in the meaning of the clothing. The juxtaposing of

various garment systems next to one another forms a syntagm, or different signs and

associations based on different garment combinations (Barthes, “The Elements of

Semiology,” 60 – 64). When studying fashion the commutation test allows for us to spot

the important signifiers within each system that together weave the syntagm. By

introducing a change in the signifier, or plane of expression, one can observe whether that

change brings about a correlative transformation to the signified, or plane of content

(Barthes, “The Elements of Semiology,” 65 – 66). By combining different signifiers

within the syntagm, one is able to generate a change in meaning from the substitution that

changes the expression but not the content.

 
   24  

The decoding of signs was even more important for the gay community who were

very closeted until the twenty-first century. Belonging to their group meant that they

needed to excel in decoding invisible vestimentary signs. To examine this claim in more

depth, it is important to note the historical context of Barthes’ theory. Society in the

1960s instructed gays and lesbians to adhere to normative dress codes in order to be

accepted by the larger society. These strict rules urged gays and lesbians to dress down

instead of flamboyantly (Barthes, “The Language of Fashion,” 84). “Respectable” and

“ordinary” attire was preferred to visibly different dress. Therefore, as a form of

resistance and as a means of communicating with the rest of the gay and lesbian

community, signs in clothing became necessary.

It was not until the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-

first century that the lack of critical analysis in fashion was broken. Fashion theory is

grounded in the principle that “fashion” is a cultural construct that embodies consumers

identities (Barnard, 21). The term “fashion theory” was now finally considered an

interdisciplinary field that studied fashion as a meaning system within which cultural and

aesthetic portrayals of the clothed body are produced (Barnard, 23).

H. Conclusion

Semiology is a science that uncovers the underlying meaning behind a text,

image, object, or garment. It is interested in how the signifieds came to be and what the

signifieds within a certain time period are. Like all sign systems, fashion is

interconnected with other elements of culture and can be used as an analytical tool for

examining various aspects of cultural significance. Furthermore, clothing can act as a

 
   25  

guide to various events, histories and even gender struggles of past eras. Clothing is an

effective tool in communicating diverse signs due to its visual cues. Drawing on semiotic

and gender theories as main tools for analysis, the next chapter will decode how Chanel’s

garments of the 1920s and 1950s broke gender norms within their appropriate time

periods. This analysis will be divided into several different sections. This study will

decode Chanel’s garment codes within its significant periods in chapter two and

McQueen’s in chapter three. The steps and the process undertaken when conducting a

semiotic analysis will be covered in depth in the next chapter when applied to one of

Chanel’s designs. In chapter four this study will compare how the two designers have

broken gender norms through the transformation of different and similar signifieds. To

conclude, in chapter five this study will expound on whether from the early twentieth

century to today there has been an evolution in the reinforcing or breaking of gender

through clothing.

 
   26  

CHAPTER 2

Chanel’s Role in Redressing Sexual Hierarchies

A. The Little Black Dress

I chose three different designs by Alexander McQueen and Coco Chanel that will

be a platform for discussing the ways that both McQueen and Chanel challenge gender

roles and norms through fashion. The previous chapter elaborated on two approaches

used to analyze the designs of Coco Chanel. The first is a sociological approach from a

gender theory standpoint utilizing the concept of gender performativity as my tool. The

second is a linguistic approach within semiology utilizing the concepts of signs, signifier

and signified. By utilizing Barthes’ theoretical approaches influenced by Saussure, this

chapter aims to conduct a semiotic analysis on three designs by Coco Chanel with the

objective of analyzing their codes of breaking gender stereotypes within their current

époque. The underlying assumption of this analysis is that the designs are in some way

culturally significant to the era and require decoding and examination. All the theories

stated will facilitate the translation of Chanel’s fashion garments, demonstrating that they

have helped women evade from their traditional feminine roles, thereby achieving a

balance between expression and repression.

CHANEL was created by the legendary couturier, Gabrielle Chanel who later

adopted the name Coco Chanel when she became successful in her fashion career. She

was the woman who freed women that were prohibited from wearing small amounts of

fabric and who were forced to wear heavy material clothing. Simply put, her fashion was

 
   27  

“a commitment to new way of living that explicitly rejected the old” (Driscoll, 151).

When looking at the designs of Alexander McQueen, one notes that many of his

strategies mixed up the vocabulary of male and female clothes and provided the wearer

with a feeling of hidden luxury just like Chanel did 75 years before. Although Chanel

refused to define herself as a feminist, she spoke a lot about femininity and how her work

was indisputably part of the liberation of women. In this chapter, this study will analyze

how she helped women free themselves from a form of social constraints not once, but

twice, during the 1920s and 1950s. It was due to her incorporation of non-verbal

messages into fashion designs and her creation of designs that accentuated the individual

without the influence of societal vestimentary constraints that she was labeled as part of

the modern movement. Chanel seeks both to understand gender roles and explore their

limitations when challenged. The combination of her background and experiences will

allow me to observe and comment on various signs of gender roles in fashion pieces in

ways that will encourage the incessant rereading of gender markers.

a. How to Conduct a Semiotic Analysis on Fashion Garments

The reason why I chose the little black dress, the Camellia dress and the Boyish

look ensemble by Coco Chanel are that each show how she mixed feminine and

masculine text to blur gender lines, achieve androgyny and gender equality. In each of

these garments, Chanel attempted to place women in men’s physical garments to reverse

the relations of power. She endeavored to make women play the role of men by wearing

black, revealing calves and expressing their sexuality through signs that helped them

redefine femininity and in turn masculinity. Each of the designs chosen show how Chanel

 
   28  

decides to use masculine signs to a woman’s advantage. Chanel deconstructs gender

stereotypes by shifting the signified of color, form, length and body that are present in

each of the three designs. She does so by taking on the design process from a new and

innovative technique. She never sketched like other designers, but rather would have a

dress or coat placed on a model, and start tearing the fabric apart, sometimes piercing the

skin of the poor girl who was forced to stand there for hours. This reflected the savagery

noted in the slashing, tattering and deconstruction of the twentieth century stereotypical

perfectionism. Each of these designs is a piece of one of Chanel’s most powerful

creations, the flapper or femme fatale of the early twentieth century.

In the early twentieth century, men dominated the fashion industry making

clothing for their own eyes rather than for women’s comfort. Although women were

uncomfortable in their dresses and corsets, they were forced to wear mounds of fabric

and cages in order to look more curvaceous. Chanel, angered by this constriction of the

body, challenged these designs by creating relaxing yet elegant dresses that were multi-

purpose thus serving both the corporate and social world (Waddell, 125). She claimed,

“nothing is more beautiful than freedom of the body” (Alston, 84). Her most famous

contribution to this collection of versatile dresses was the 1926 little black dress.

Semioticians look at clothing as a sign waiting to be decoded and analyzed. When

conducting a semiotic analysis on Chanel’s invention of the little black dress, the

objective is to analyze its social significance in the year 1926 and how women who wear

the little black dress have changed culture’s concept of gender norms. The underlying

assumption of this analysis is that the garment code in some way was culturally

significant and required decoding and analysis.

 
   29  

The first step in conducting this semiotic analysis is to establish the signs within

the little black dress to be decoded. In this case, the signs found within the little black

dress are the ribbon located around the neck, the color black, white cuffs, glass beads and

imitation pearls, wool and the long and straight silhouette. Therefore, the signs within this

garment system are categorized as follows: accessory, color, length, fabric and shape.

The next step is to determine what each sign means by analyzing its signifier and

signified in the context of 1926 and sketch the overall historical, cultural, and political

context in which the sign appears.

b. Silhouette

The study begins by analyzing the text of the shape of the dress. The 1920s were

nicknamed the Androgynous era or the

Gender Crisis era due to their shift in

couture to cleaner lines with a de-emphasis

on the breasts and butt (Boland, “Art Deco

Fashion”). The little black dress’ signifiers

are a long and straight cut with a flat bust

and a straight waste. The flat bust is a

signified of a boyish figure, while the waist

and figure are ignored to create a signified

of an ambivalent androgynous figure.

Women in those days had to wear large

amounts of fabric put together as well as 2.1 1892 House of Worth Afternoon Dress.
Note the abundance of ruffles and layers of
fabric that constrict the woman’s movement.

 
   30  

corsets so they looked curvy and beautiful and were restricted in their movements; this

made it difficult for women to do anything other then work in the house (see Figure 2.1)

(Nischa, “Semiotics: Chanel vs Dolce & Gabbana (Wk 3)”). The fact that women felt

uncomfortable and were restricted to their culturally constructed social roles angered

Chanel. She claimed, “A girl should be two things: who and what she wants” (Karbo,

120). She decided to rebel by rewriting the fashion code and making the little black dress,

a small loose fitting, easy to wear and comfortable dress (see Figure 2.2). The novel

silhouette of the little black dress allowed for

women to both work and play. The approach

to the design focused on speed, efficiency and

elegance. It was designed to allow for women

to move and slide easily over the uncorseted

body it was intended for. As aforementioned,

gender performativity is the repetition of social

acts that create gender distinctions and gender

norms that are caused by the struggle between

society and ones inner self. It is only by

changing and manipulating the repetition of 2.2 1926 Little Black Dress. The original
little black dress designed and worn by
those acts that a “subversion of identity Coco Chanel.

becomes possible” (Butler, “Gender Trouble,” 145). Chanel liberated women from the

1926 rules of gender performativity of curvy bodies in a tight constricted silhouette

confining the woman to the domestic sphere by flattening the bust and therefore allowing

women to become androgynous in their gender, free in movement and one step closer to

 
   31  

gender equality.

c. The Color Black

The invention of the little black dress was multipurpose for the woman and an

innovation to the female form. She introduced the design during the inter-war period

when bright colors, prints and heavy patterns dominated the fashion industry.

While men were fighting in WWI, women were working and therefore wearing black, a

lower class color. To truly understand the development of the signified of the color black

according to its socio-historical time period, it is important to backtrack its signified to

the beginning of time. In the beginning, during

the Christian era, black was a signified of the

devil, hell and death, since the world was

assumed to have started from nothing, from

blackness (Pastoureau, 30). Towards the

medieval era, couturiers began to make a habit

of utilizing the color black in their royal luxury

items (Pastoureau, 100). The phenomenon began

in Italy and initially only involved urban circles.

Many merchants possessed great wealth but were 2.3 1926 Chanel’s “Ford” as seen in
America’s 1926 publication of Vogue.
not able to break through social classes boundaries. They were forbidden from using the

royal colors red and blue, which represented the two feuding royal cities of Venice and

Florence (Pastoureau, 100). In turn, merchants chose to provoke these boundaries by

dressing in a very specific tone of black that could only be created for the rich that were

 
   32  

more solid, vibrant, and seductive. This is when black took on a new signified of wealth

and luxury. The first car to be industrially produced was the Ford Model-T. In order to

reduce the cost of the car, it was painted in black. That is when black’s signified became

that of the industrial revolution and modernism (Calcaires, “An Introduction to Black

Color Symbolism”). In fact, in 1926 American Vogue compared Chanel’s “little black

dress” to the Ford, alluding to its universal popularity as a fashion basic. Reiterating

Henry Ford’s line, “any customer can have a car painted in any color that he wants so

long as it is black” (Basye, “Hang Onto Your Pearls: The Little Black Dress Is Born”).

Vogue had accompanied the picture of the Chanel “Ford” with the following blurb (see

Figure 2.3):

“The Chanel “Ford” the frock that all the world will wear is model 817 of black

crepe de chine. The bodice blouses slightly at the front and the sides and has a

tight bolero at the back. Especially chic is the arrangement of tiny tucks which

cross in front. Imported by Saks.” (Basye, “Hang Onto Your Pearls: The Little

Black Dress Is Born”)

In 1926, black’s signified changed once again as it was worn mainly during the

period of mourning of the inter-war era. In 1926, black was a signified of sorrow, sin,

death and submission (Pastoureau, 139). After WWI and the Spanish Flu epidemic, a lot

of widows in France were forced to solely wear the signifier of an austere matte black for

a year with a thick English crepe veil and opaque black stockings (Bisset, “Why Chanel's

Little Black Dress Has Never Gone Out of Fashion”). After a year, women could add

 
   33  

more discreet signifiers such as trimmings, white embellishments to add a bit of color,

and substitute thick veil with a thinner black veil. However, they were still forced to wear

black and the color was still a signified of mourning. Farther family relatives were

limited to wearing darker colors as well, but were given more flexibility allowing them to

choose between colors such as grey and navy blue (Bisset, “Why Chanel's Little Black

Dress Has Never Gone Out of Fashion”). Other members of society that were permitted

to wear black at the time were urban working class males and the clergy. The clergy wore

black as a signified of their submission to God and authority (Pastoureau, 96). Male suits

were also solely made in black, which signified authority. From 1926 to today, black

came to be a signified for authority due to the color’s nature. Black is able to give the

allusion of distancing oneself from normal beings and asserting his or her authority upon

others (Calcaires, “An Introduction to Black Color Symbolism”). Women were only

allowed to wear black undergarments and intimates, even though they mainly signified

the demimonde (Pastoureau, 98).

Chanel used the signifier black in the little black dress as an unambiguous sign of

sexual impropriety, modernity and authority, similar to that of men, as a clear sign that

women were ready to enter the workforce. Her little black dress made the upper class’

colorful extravagant gowns appear preposterous and boastful. Chanel had created the

urban uniform of shop girls equal to the suits of professional men. She shifted the

signified of black from a solely male, authoritarian, and sorrowful color to a

sophisticated, dignifying, gender neutral and authoritative color. She gave women

strength and gender ambiguity by transforming the power of the color black in the little

black dress. Black is not an easy color to decode due to its numerous signifieds that

 
   34  

change according to its socio-historical context. However, the signified that Chanel is

trying to impose onto the signifier black is that of power and authority. Only a character

that is strong enough can confront all other signs that may be read from black and make

them his or hers. A person who wears black is self-confident, fearless, and fully assumes

the fact that black may be read from other observers as a negative sign.

d. Obscuring Masculine Text

Designer’s of the twentieth century typically obscured masculine text in their

ensembles through the use of various “finishing touches” or signifiers such as

embroidery, lace collars, trims and cuffs, as seen in Chanel’s little black dress (Stewart,

183). Chanel was making harsh gender statements and allegations through the use of

these signs in her garments, so decided to sidestep some sex and gender controversies by

adding gender codes consisting of white trimmings and cuffs to go with the black and

white trend of the time. Being an orphan, Chanel had been raised in a convent and was

therefore still loyal to the nuns that took care of her growing up (Rather, 110). The

influence that the convent and the nuns had on her life made Chanel soften some of the

masculine and immoral signs in the making of her little black dress, such as the signs

associated with the color black of the naughty demimonde and male authority. Although

she added white trimmings that signified purity to cover up some of the immoral signs,

she still made the dress mildly transgressive in Catholic-raised but largely secular urban

circles.

 
   35  

e. Costume Jewelry

The term “costume jewelry” was first coined in the 1920s in what people called

the Art Deco era or “streamline modern” (Collectors Weekly, “Art Deco Costume

Jewelry”). Art Deco arose in response to Art Nouveau and, therefore, embraced

industrialization. Art Deco rejected laidback women with layers, multiple fabrics and

corsets and favored geometric harmony, straight lines and angles intersected by circles

and curves (Collectors Weekly, “Art Deco Costume Jewelry”). Now that the war was

over, technology began to advance in the business arena and focused on creating new

materials and processes. Materials that were once used for the war, such as metal, plastic

and glass tones, began to be used to create faux jewelry. As a result, jewelry no longer

stood as a differentiator between social classes, “costume jewelry” was now being

created as cheap adornment. The socio-economic impact of the creation of costume

jewelry gave more women access to this mode of breaking gender norms. Rather than

just giving wealthy women access to the tools necessary to rebel against culture’s

constraints, the common folk were given the tools as well. Flappers, young and single

women who dictated their own lives and were against social norms and traditional female

roles that resubmitted to strict Victorian morality, especially embraced costume jewelry

as a means of expressing their desire to be free and modern. Flappers rebelled against

these social norms by engaging in activities previously limited to men such as cutting

their hair to a short and bobbed hairdo, wearing red lipstick and short skirts, smoking

cigarettes in public, drinking alcohol at bars and danced at jazz clubs (Forever 20s,

“Conflicts”). They knew that changing their lifestyle and ideology was the only way they

would gain equality even if society did not want it.

 
   36  

Chanel reflected on the cultural shift of the time claiming that a woman “could do

or say whatever she wanted as long as she was wearing pearls” (Karbo, 169). Any

woman could buy herself a string of pearls and flirt with men, not only the elite. The

white vertical-beaded imitation pearls found on top of Chanel’s little black dress reflect

the Art Deco style that was widespread at the time and signified a desire to be free and

modern from society’s impositions. The light color of the pearls placed on top of the

harsh black of the dress, on the other hand, are a signified of sisterly chastity, an

influence of the nuns once again. The signified of the word modern changes according to

the socio-historical context it is being referred to or used for. In the context of the 1920s,

modern was a woman who was beginning to enter the job market and political arena and

who redefined marriage, motherhood, and “womanliness” for a new era (America in

Class, “Modernity”).

f. String Tie Bow

Throughout history bowties had been associated as a strictly male accessory until

the 1920s when they officially began to be introduced in women’s wear as a form of

gender bending. Women chose to either wear bowties around their neck or wear a more

subtle form of the bowtie, a ribbon. Ribbons on children’s dresses had signified a

restraining device. It was not until the 1920s that ribbons on children’s dresses took on

the signified of a child being seen as a child and not as a little adult (Historical Boys’

Clothing, “Shoulder Ribbons on Dresses”). Ribbons became a sign that little children had

the right behave as children. The same could be said about the ribbon found on Chanel’s

little black dress. The ribbon is a signified of a woman having the right to behave as a

 
   37  

woman. During the 1920s, different styles of ribbons signified different codes. A firm

knot signified marriage, while the flamboyant and lose ribbon found on Chanel’s little

black dress signified that the wearer was single and interested in flirting and mingling

(Historical Boys’ Clothing, “Shoulder Ribbons on Dresses”). Once again, this subtle take

of the bowtie found on Chanel’s dress was a sign of androgyny and a self-confident and

free woman.

g. Fabric

Chanel’s little black dress is made of wool, one of the least feminine fabrics of the

1920s worn more often by men than women, that signified a sophisticated, masculine,

urban business look. Fashion “is ultimately determined by its materials,” which means

that the texture, weight, color and motifs of fabrics are essential parts of gender messages

conveyed by any ensemble (Stewart, 185). Cavallaro and Warwick argue that materials

“may be seen as embodiments of two distinct albeit interacting types of space: the

smooth, as the locus of fluidity, fusion and boundless, and the striated, as that of order,

classification and categorization” (Stewart, 186). In turn, smooth fabrics signified a

feminine inflection, while ribbed fabrics, such as the wool in Chanel’s little black dress,

signified masculine inflections. Roland Barthes contends that all fabrics are classified by

weight such that lightweight fabrics signified a light, fine, and frivolous identity while

heavyweight fabrics signified a heavy, authoritative, and solemn identity (Barthes, “The

Fashion System,” 58).

 
   38  

h. Deconstruction of the Little Black Dress

The slogan “little black dress” is still used today, but is long removed from what

Chanel’s little black dress used to be. One thing Chanel had emphasized over anything

else was the accessibility of her clothing. When speaking about her garments, she

claimed, “I like fashion to go down the street, but I cannot accept that it should originate

there” (Howard, “The Little Black Dress - Everyone's Favorite”). Since she wanted her

designs to be everywhere, she made them versatile and simple, but most of all affordable

so that every woman could have access to them and feel empowered (Howard, “The

Little Black Dress - Everyone's Favorite”). Chanel’s little black dress was used for any

function, but its primary purpose was of creating a comfortable outfit for women entering

the workplace. This continued until the 1950s, when Christian Dior created the “New

Look,” erasing the little black dresses signified of authority for a business setting and

applying it to a signified that revolved more around the femme fatale for a cocktail

setting (Howard, “The Little Black Dress - Everyone's Favorite”). To this day, the little

black dress is known as the “cocktail dress.” Its use is now that of a “simple black

ferment suitable for a woman to wear at most kinds of relatively formal social

engagements” (The Oxford English Dictionary). Today, Chanel would deem that the little

black dress is not being used to its full potential as its left on a hanger until the next black

tie event. Chanel would want women to wear the little black dress everyday and

everywhere from work and cocktails to lunch with friends. It is simply a matter of

knowing how to style it.

 
   39  

i. Conclusion of the Little Black Dress

What the little black dress did in the twentieth century was break through gender

performativity, or in this context, the ritual practice of wearing frills, corsets, and

constricting clothing that created a “feminine” gender in a domestic sphere. She broke

through gender performativity by creating the narrow, shapeless silhouette of the little

black dress with a reduction in fabric, leading to a more authoritative, free and

androgynous style. Chanel obviously criticized societies gender norms, and consequently

society’s power to determine what is considered clear gender. She attempted to break

down binary oppositions of male and female making it easier for women to construct

their own gender identity at an individual level. By allowing women to switch from being

feminine to masculine without a change in personality, Chanel denies the existence of a

male or female gender core. She believes in androgyny. Her genderless fashion was able

to aid in the breaking down of gender stereotypes by associating both gender norms with

one individual. Chanel attempted to escape gender identity positions by placing women

in men’s shoes and reversing the relations of power. She made women play the role of

men and helped them redefine masculinity as appearance. She took masculine clothing

and feminized it. Therefore, not only making women more equal to men, but

transforming culturally male gender norms into feminine norms. The changing view of

femininity is inextricably linked to the changing view of masculinity. Essentially, she,

like Judith Butler, believes in the deconstruction of these gender categories.

 
   40  

B. Camellia Dress

The next ensemble to be decoded is the 1937 Camellia evening dress (see Figure

2.4). The signs found within the Camellia evening dress are the Camellia, split-sleeves,

backless cut, the black and white color contrast, and silk and lace. Therefore the signs

within this garment system are categorized as form, accessory, color and fabric.

a. Silhouette

Beginning with the form, instead of creating a gown composed of many layers as

was common in the 1920s and 30s, Chanel created a form-fitting dress that showcased

the female form rather then cached it. The

emphasis in the dress was on the waist,

shoulders and chest, which were accentuated

by the split sleeves. The form-fitted dress

functions as a signifier to emphasize the

natural lines of the body rather than the

constructed corseted form of the body. It was

form-fitted to the natural lines of the body

utilizing delicate and fluid fabrics so as to

make the body comfortable and free to move 2.4 1937 Camellia Evening dress by Chanel.

around in, therefore the signified is not restricting women to a reticent role in society.

The split-sleeves as a signifier help broaden and open the chest while simultaneously

accentuating the shoulders of the woman, which was considered the erotic zone of the

body in the late 1930s. The broader shoulders naturally separated the women’s breasts

 
   41  

allowing for ease of movement and a comfortable body free from heavy, stiff, corseted

mechanisms. The signified is a masculine feature of authority and sign of power caused

by the open chest of the woman, much like that of a man wearing a tux, that instills

uneasiness in the people neighboring the dress. The other signified is that of androgyny

noted through the accentuation of the shoulders, a sexually ambiguous and genderless

area. The low cut back as a signifier also emphasizes the signified of androgyny, the back

being one of the most androgynous, genderless, most vulnerable yet erotic parts of the

body.

b. Silk and Lace

As an advocate for comfortable yet stylish clothing, Chanel was the first women

to take typical male fabrics used for undergarments, such as jersey and cotton, and

transform them into women’s everyday wear. Chanel embodies the experimentation of

these conventionally masculine fabrics that would invert these essential fashion gender

and class distinctions. In the Camellia evening dress, the white Camellia flowers made of

silk are of particular interest. Throughout history, silk has shifted as a signified from a

hard masculine rich fabric to a feminine, smooth and soft fabric, steadily associating

itself with a smooth, erotic feminine feel (Cavendish, 231). The use of lace as garment

fringes has evolved as well from medieval Europe, where it used to be considered a

masculine signified of wealth, to a feminine signified (Bolich, 214). Although both

fabric’s signifieds do lean towards more of a gender restraint, what needs to be taken into

account is the fact that their other signifieds are that of a light, fine and frivolous identity,

the opposite of how women were supposed to comport themselves at the time.

 
   42  

c. Camellia Flower

As previously mentioned, Chanel had shifted the signified of the color black to a

sophisticated, dignified, authoritative and gender-neutral color. The color white

contrasting with the black was a signified of

purity, innocence and status in order to not stir

any turmoil with her big gender claims. The

contrasting black and white not only are a code to

temper the gender claims made by Chanel but are

also a means of placing extra emphasis on the

white Camellia flowers (see Figure 2.5). The Art

Deco period had exposed Europe to many exotic

Asian concepts, the Camellia flower being 2.5 1937 Camellia Evening dress by Chanel.

Chanel’s favorite. The Camellia as signifier is an exotic forbidden flower found in eastern

and southeastern Asia. A deeper analysis into the nature of a flower however, reveals that

flowers are signifieds as seducers. Flowers are seducers because they endure in the wild

by using their beauty and scent to lure pollinating insects and birds. Flowers have always

been a sign of female sexuality throughout history, showing either a lack or presence of

sexuality. Since the flower is the reproductive organ of the plant, reproduction depends

on the ability of the flower to attract birds and bees with its color, odor, sweetness and

form (Graziano, 74). Therefore, flowers are a signified of female genitalia (Graziano, 74).

The flower’s signified is a juxtaposition between life and death, innocence and sinister

seduction, and everlasting and short-lived beauty (Ben-Horin, “Fashion in Black &

White- Part III, Flowers”). The Camellia flower’s petals fall when the flower is finished

 
   43  

blooming, but unlike most flowers, its calyx does not and remains on the tree (Copeland,

598). The calyx as a signifier is the signified as the strength of women against the brutal

forces of society that endeavor to strip them apart.

d. Camellia Conclusion

The Camellia evening dress is a clear example of the use of clothes as gender

performance to strengthen the sense of a gender and make it more ambiguous. By

utilizing these signs as an opportunity for resistance, “the universality of [dress] codes

and their meanings allow for the [subversion of] mainstream ‘messages’ they convey and

through this to illuminate the existence of alternative [gender] identities” (Hawkes, 261 –

270).

C. Boyish Look Ensemble

The last Chanel garment system to be decoded is the 1956 boyish look ensemble

(see Figure 2.6). The signs found within the boyish look ensemble include a shortened

skirt cut above the ankle, a sharp tailored cut, elbow length sleeves, a leather belt,

repetition of Japanese kanji, a neckline with a bow, and the black wool coat with the

white Camellia embellishment. Therefore, the signs within this garment system are

categorized as tailoring cut, fabric and print. Chanel’s lesser-known 1950s line was

received with much controversy. After WWII, people wanted to move forward with the

war just like they did with WWI and were expecting Chanel to come out with another

revolutionary style. Men were going back to the workforce, while women were expected

to put all their energy into their role as domestic housewives. However, women were

 
   44  

reluctant to go back and wanted to go back into the workforce (George, 86 – 88). Chanel

was intuitive and decided to create clothing that once again spoke about what the woman

wanted rather then what society wanted women to wear.

a. Form

At this time, other male fashion designers were trying to impose frills, corsets and

artificial curves once again. Chanel rebelled against these gender ideals through the

signifiers of shortening the length of the skirt to well

above the ankle and making the waist invisible once

again. This look came to be known as the boyish

look. The short length of the skirt signified closer

equality between men and women. By shortening the

skirt, Chanel went against the male fashion grain that

was imposing long skirts and frilly skirts and

managed to close the gap between gender differences

by downplaying male’s role of superiority. Chanel

repeated the signifier of the straight cut she used in

the little black dress in 1926 in her 1956 boyish look 2.6 1956 Boyish ensemble with black
coat.
ensemble to make the body less curvaceous so that no specific female body part would be

emphasized, eroticized or stand out. By shaping a woman’s body androgynously equal to

a man’s, Chanel made her boyish look a signified of freedom and breaking of cultural

gender norms. The elbow length sleeves are a signifier fashioned through pin tucks to

create a stiff form. Men were the only ones who would roll up their sleeves in society

 
   45  

when doing manual labor or work. Hence, the rolled up sleeves on the boyish look are a

signified of power. This helped women show their stance of where they wanted to be and

how they wanted to be viewed in culture. Wearing other designer’s looks, such as Dior’s

New Look, would be conforming to male societies ideals of what women should wear.

Women want to be in the workforce, rolling up their sleeves and not be slaves within

their own house.

b. Leather

Chanel added a simple leather belt around the waist as a signifier to hint at the

wearer’s waistline without making her feel confined. During WWII, significant

advancements in the leather jacket were developed for aviation (see Figure 2.7). In the

1950s that leather jackets became synonymous with

motorcycling. Motorcyclists were known for being a

very open group of people who were very tolerant and

accepting, so in the 1950s gay and lesbian people began

to adopt their style (Geczy & Karaminas, 89). The gay

and lesbian culture found leather as a signifier

extremely appealing due to it sensual contact with the

skin of the wearer. Leather jackets were now being

worn as a statement rather then just as a means of 2.7 late 1930s leather bomber
jacket from WWII aviators.
protection, transforming them from a signified of authority to pride, belonging,

brotherhood and in some contexts defiance. By adding leather around the waist, Chanel is

giving women the chance to be defiant in their expression of gender. By adding leather to

 
   46  

the dress the power of the woman here is transgressed, destabilized, negotiated and

challenged.  

c. Art Deco Japonisme: Outdated or Relevant?

As mentioned previously, Art Deco style, which lasted from 1910 to 1935, had a

huge influence on Chanel’s past garment system. Her outdated repetition of Art Deco

style in the boyish look ensemble puzzled people who expected her to conform to

societies novel fashion norms. The signifier of the Japanese Kanji symbols was probably

chosen due to the fact that the Japanese had allied with France during WWI. After the

war, Asia opened up to Europe allowing for an influx of novel fabrics, cuts and designs

that played a huge role in the Art Deco era. Japonisme, or the influence of Japanese art

and culture on Westerners, had a huge impact during the nineteenth and early twentieth

century (Broquet, “Fine Fettle: Fashion Inspiration: Japonisme”). Japonisme’s influence

can be very clearly noted through the origami-like folds in Chanel’s 1950s ensemble and

print blocking. This pin-tuck technique, very similar to Mariano Fortuny’s from the

analysis of A la Recherche du Temps Perdu in chapter one, forms wavy parallel folds that

evoke the abstract image of a raked Zen rock garden. The signifier of the Zen rock garden

in Japan is itself a signified of the waves of the sea, another essential minimalist motif

found in Japonisme (Broquet, “Fine Fettle: Fashion Inspiration: Japonisme”). The

signified of waves deciphered from the Zen garden could be even further analyzed to

mean repetition of history once again. Waves are repetitive in their act, going through a

continuous cycle of building up energy then dying down. This repetition can come to

symbolize the repetition of history from after WWI. By utilizing this technique, Chanel

 
   47  

manages to reintroduce the idea of Japonisme present in the late nineteenth century and

early twentieth century to prove that society had not made progress since the last post

war. Furthermore, the kimono, which many times bore Kanji signifiers, was constructed

much like the boyish look as a garment that was deconstructed to create a novel shape

and androgynous body. The signifier of the Japanese kanji symbols within the boyish

look ensemble is repetitive in order to attempt to represent the wearer. The repetition of

the Japanese Kanji symbols is a signified of the repetition of history, that there has been

no change in society. Society had not changed since the Art Deco period. Women were

still working at home and men were still dominating over women. Although people

wanted to move past WWII, Chanel’s return to the signifier of Art Deco in the boyish

look made people question whether they were ready to move forward and past the war.

Chanel believed that no progress had been made since the last post war for women so

used the repetition of the Art Deco Japonisme style as a sign.

d. String Bow Tie

The boyish look ensemble had a simple neckline with a string tie bow on it, which

is a very untraditional signifier. Like in the little black dress, Chanel bears a string tie

bow around her neck, a signified of a woman having the right to behave as a woman. The

looseness of the string tie bow is a signified of a wearer who is single and interested in

flirting and mingling. Once again, this subtle take of the bowtie found on Chanel’s dress

was a sign of androgyny and a self-confident, modern and free woman.

 
   48  

e. Black Shifts Signified Again

Although in the 1920s Chanel had shifted the signified of black from a solely

male, authoritarian, and sorrowful color to a sophisticated, dignifying, gender neutral and

authoritative color. In the 1950s she shifted the signified of black once again to a

sophisticated, gender neutral, sorrowful color of mourning (see Figure 2.8). By utilizing a

black coat in a an era when people wanted to move past the war, she forced people to

think back to the grief and mourning that took place after WWI. She endeavored to give

women strength and gender ambiguity whilst still reminding society of its unchanging

stance by transforming the power of the color black in the boyish look ensemble.

2.8 Boyish Ensemble worn with a black

wool jacket and the iconic Camellia flower.

f. Camellia Flower

A Camellia flower is found around the neck of the black wool coat. Chanel still

sees the Camellia’s signified as the strength of women against the brutal forces of society

 
   49  

that endeavor to strip them apart, but applies it in the new context of the 1950s. What

male designers are endeavoring to do is reposition women back in their place by

converting back to old garment systems that use corsets and frills. What Chanel is

allowing women to tell society through the Camellia is that they will not let society tell

them what to do.

g. Boyish Look Ensemble Conclusion

By staying consistent with her idea of comfortable, chic and art deco clothing,

Chanel helped free women of conforming to what male designers wanted to see on them.

Chanel believed that no progress had been made since the last post war for women so

used the boyish look ensemble as a sign for women to non-verbally speak about this.

Chanel tries to get rid of this gender binary by breaking through Butler’s theory of gender

performativity by creating new androgynous styles through the use of signifiers,

transforming signifieds, and by changing what it means to be feminine and masculine

through signs.

D. Availability of Clothing

Chanel’s garment system once again allowed for the majority of working class

women to rebel non-verbally against the structured ideals society had set out for them in

the 1950s. A level playing field in the fashion world was one step closer to forming a

larger, steady, middle class. For Chanel, this meant paying attention to the needs of

everyday people as well. That is why she listened to the working class woman by offering

clothing that was practical in style, color and material that looked expensive yet was still

 
   50  

comfortable. By the twentieth century, the socioeconomic gap between the wealthy and

the poor closed drastically (Sessions, “What Clothing Cost in the 1920's”). Fake jewelry

and real jewelry were indistinguishable and rayon looked like silk, only a close study of

the garments could reveal their true value.

“Fashion equality did not blur the line between qualities of clothing, it blurred the

line between qualities of people (classes). One couldn’t tell the different just from

looking at someone. Unless of course they had no fashion taste and were merely

imitating what they thought the wealthy wore. Immigrants for example often wore

brighter, clashing colors, in cheap flimsy materials, poor shoes and flippant hats –

basically the extreme of a wealthy person.” (Allen, 78)

Chanel made clothing for the middle and upper class, but was not able to cater to the

lower class (Sessions, “What Clothing Cost in the 1920's”). That being said, this did not

stop fashion from following her lead and allowing cheaper designers to imitate her styles.

This gave the lower class the chance to endeavor to break gender norms. Her fashion

allowed women to be liberated from previous gender constraints as well as reject new

ones that were forming through other fashion designers in the 1950s.

E. Prelude to Alexander McQueen

In the next chapter the same theories and deconstruction of fashion garments will

be applied to facilitate the translation of Alexander McQueen’s three fashion garments,

the feather dress, antler dress and spine corset. In the next chapter, McQueen does what

 
   51  

Chanel was not given the opportunity to exploit, due to her time period, utilize signs

found in genderless beings and place them on women to help them break free from

gender stereotypes of the twenty-first century. Rather than take masculine signs and

solely place them on women’s clothing to give them more power, McQueen will utilize

women’s genderless sexual power to create the femme fatale by creating hybrids and

utilizing animal signs. Decoding these three garments will demonstrate how McQueen’s

transformation of women into a hybrid or creature that is genderless is a means of

attaining a step closer to true androgyny.

 
   52  

CHAPTER 3

Alexander McQueen

Lee Alexander McQueen was one of the most influential, imaginative and

provocative British designers of his generation. His clothing both challenged and

expanded conventional parameters of fashion to express ideas about culture politics and

identity. McQueen saw beyond clothing’s physical constraints to its ideological and

conceptual possibilities, addressing questions related to race, class, gender, religion,

environment, fashion and of course, sexuality. Similar to women during Chanel’s time,

modern day women struggle against the social constructs of success. Gender inequality is

defined as “the disparity in status, power and prestige between people who identify as

women and men” (Mundy, “The Richer $ex: Women Are Overtaking Men as America's

Breadwinner. Why That's Good for Everyone”). People should warn against declaring

victory for women workers. Although women have made large strides in gender equality,

there is still a large disparity between the number of women in the workforce and the

wage gap. The strives are evident in the data that reveals that “Almost 40% of wives

make more money than their husbands…Women today make up almost 60% of U.S.

college students and earn the majority of doctorates and master’s degrees…In the

majority of the U.S. metro areas, single, childless women in their 20s make more per

dollar than their male peers” (Mundy, “The Richer $ex: Women Are Overtaking Men as

America's Breadwinner. Why That's Good for Everyone”). On the contrary however,

gender inequality is still noted through the obvious wage gap that proves that between

women and men working full time, women earn 81% of a man’s weekly median wage

 
   53  

and through the very slow increase in percentage of women who are managers in the last

twenty years, which has only risen from 35% to 38% (Mundy, “The Richer $ex: Women

Are Overtaking Men as America's Breadwinner. Why That's Good for Everyone”).

McQueen rebelled against the stigma towards feminine sex and sought to prove that

women were strong without men around and that sex was not necessary to fulfill their

lives. Unlike Chanel who begins to focus on masculine qualities in her clothing to give

women strength, McQueen embraces the wide range of female qualities women are born

with and utilizes them to give women strength, resolve and versatility.

In this chapter, this study will delve deeper into Alexander McQueen’s

empowerment of women through the creation of the femme fatale in his three garments,

the feather dress, antler dress and spine corset. In the nineteenth century, according to

society the femme fatale was a signified of female sexuality as perverse and deathly, due

to the increasing social, economic and sexual emancipation of women (Dijkstra, 6)

(Showalter, 23). McQueen revived the style of the femme fatale but changed its signified.

Throughout all three of his designs, this study will explain how McQueen’s garment

codes change the sign of the femme fatale from fear of death to a fear of her strength and

examine how McQueen utilized hybrid and animal signs to give women genderless

power signs to get a step closer to true androgyny.

A. Accessibility of McQueen’s Clothing

With this, the question of accessibility arises with whether all women are given

the chance to become genderless and get one step closer to androgyny and gender

equality. Most of McQueen’s initial runway designs, which are examined in this chapter,

 
   54  

are extremely expensive and only a very few upper class people can afford them.

Although at first only upper class women are given the liberty to express themselves as

genderless through the use of McQueen’s garments, the alternate means with which his

designs reach the middle class and common folk are fast and plentiful. His inspirations

and designs ultimately reach the middle and lower class through the trickle down theory

or effect. One of the most important principles of fashion is the trickle-down theory,

introduced by Thorstein Veblen in 1899, that theorized that new technologies and

consumer goods begin in the upper class, until companies manufacture more affordable

versions and they spread slowly downward through different classes till they arrive to the

lower class (Veblen, 11). Georg Simmel, specifically applied Veblen’s concept to the

fashion industry and personal style stating that the lower class copies the clothing and

signs that the upper class initially uses in an attempt to achieve upward socio-economic

mobility and the same opportunities of the upper class (Simmel, 130 - 155). Although

these theories came out in the early twentieth century, the affordability aspect is still

highly applicable today in modern fashion as different lower end brands recreate the

same concepts a year or two later at a more affordable price (Walmsley, “Trickle-Down

Theory”). To support this claim, a quote was chosen from modern day Anna Wintour,

Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue, who states that McQueen’s “imagination had an

extraordinary trickle-down effect, so what you may see looking very extreme on the

runway would end up in people’s closets in a much more understandable way”

(Gompertz, “Anna Wintour on Alexander McQueen's Legacy”). Wintour’s words mimic

the same phrase spoken by Miranda Priestly, Editor-in-Chief of Vogue in the 2006

modern day film The Devil Wears Prada, a movie presumably based on the life of Anna

 
   55  

Wintour. In The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly speaks about the trickle-down

effects stating:

“You go to your closet and you select . . . I don't know . . . that lumpy blue

sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself

too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is

that that sweater is not just blue, it is not turquoise. It is not lapis. It is actually

cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la

Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint

Laurent . . . was not it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean

quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh,

filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some

tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin.

However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it is sort

of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the

fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for

you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.”

Even if in today’s mass-market someone is not able to buy a recreated garment inspired

by Alexander McQueen, the digital era has given women the possibility to experience

what it is like to be genderless. Today, websites such as Rent the Runway, allow women

who may not have the means to buy a designer dress to rent and order an Alexander

McQueen outfit for up to 90% off the retail dress. Due to the trickle-down effect that is

 
   56  

still present today, women of all social strata are given the ability to wear McQueen’s

genderless clothing and help break gender norms.

The reason behind the choice of the feather dress, antler dress and spine corset by

Alexander McQueen is that each shows how he decides to use feminine power to a

woman’s advantage, rather than substitute it by using more masculine socially accepted

connotations about strength. The notion that women do not need men can be seen as

problematic, since McQueen himself, a man, is the one that aids in giving women power.

This will be a topic that will be delved into in the next chapter. Each of the garments are

an example of common materials he used to create his twenty-first century femme fatale

as predatory, scary, powerful and half human. Rather than view a woman’s femininity

and sensuality as weak, McQueen endeavors to liberate women through all of his

collections by shifting the signifieds of the exaggeration of the silhouette, nature, animal

references and Victorian era garment codes that are present in these three designs. He

was able to transfer each of these historical references from an earlier time period to a

relevant novel signified for the twenty-first century. Much like Chanel, he creates a

twenty-first century femme fatale that is allowed to attack and wound non-verbally

should she need to protect herself from the imposing of gender cultural norms, while

simultaneously exploiting the power of her sensuality. He elevates femininity from its

currently disgraced state as weak and derogatory.

B. Feather Dress

The first of McQueen’s ensemble to be decoded is the 2011 ready-to-wear feather

dress (see Figure 3.1). The signs found within the feather dress are the duck feathers,

 
   57  

ostrich feathers, pale gray colors, ruffles, and baggy shape. Therefore the signs within

this garment system are categorized as material, shape, accessory and color.

a. Silhouette

Beginning with the form, rather than create a straight cut silhouette that has no

form, McQueen choses the signifier of a baggy design. Women in the twenty-first

century are encouraged to seek beauty and

attract men by exposing their bodies.

Today, designers create fashion that shows

more skin, is risqué and pushes consumers

to purchase more promiscuous attire (Gray,

“Alexander McQueen: Challenging Gender

Norms in Fashion”). McQueen was against

this idea and shook up the norm by

defining beauty with the excess and the

unusual, and drew attention to the

womanly figure by covering it up (Suchy,

“Alexander McQueen: Skirting

Controversy – Nvate”). McQueen hoped to 3.1 Ready-to-wear 2011 Feather Dress.

make a splash by muddying the distinction between masculine and feminine, between

soft and hard, and between what is preposterous and beautiful. The baggy design gives

women more space for mobility rather than constraining their movements. Furthermore,

by leaving certain areas of the body cached behind loose fabric, the emphasis is steered

 
   58  

away from the women’s bodies and is fixated more on their face. The baggy silhouette’s

signified is therefore looking deeper into a woman’s soul, into her personality and who

she is rather than her appearance.

b. The Gray Area of Androgyny

Androgyny, also known as the third sex, is a natural mixing or combination of

male and female signs. Androgyny is much like the color gray. Mixing black and white

paint creates gray. Therefore, the color gray cannot be considered either black or white,

but becomes a combination of both (Wilhelm, 5). Gray is the transition between the two

colors. According to color historian Eva Heller, “Gris est trop faible pour être considéré

comme masculin, mais trop menaçante pour être considéré comme une couleur féminine.

Il n’est ni chaud ni froid, ni matérielle ou spirituelle. Avec gris, rien ne semble être

décidé” [“Grey is too weak to be considered masculine, but it is too threatening to be

considered a feminine color. It is neither cold nor hot, neither material nor spiritual. With

grey, nothing seems to be decided.”] (226). The signifier of the color gray in McQueen’s

feather dress is an unemotional color. Its signified is that of being detached, neutral and

indecisive much like androgyny is neither male nor female but neutral, indecisive, a mix

of both (Kemmis, “The Color Gray”). By utilizing the signified gray, McQueen gives

way to gender bending by blurring shapes and colors making them indefinite and creating

a sense of calm and composure as well as relief from this chaotic binary gendered

imposed world.

 
   59  

c. Ruffles used as a Weapon rather than as a Form of Oppression

Ruffles, as noted before in Chanel’s semiotic analysis, are a common feature of

women’s clothing. “Women were more likely to use undergarments to construct their

fashionable figures – corsets to rearrange their flesh, petticoats and ‘bums,’ or crescent-

shaped bustle pads, to enhance the hips. Their dresses served primarily as an outer

covering, cut and trimmed to emphasize the form they had built” (Kidwell, 57). Much has

not changed from the 1920s to today. Women still endeavor to achieve a look that society

wants to see, one where waists appear tiny but still have a large bust and bottom area.

This can be evidenced by Louis Vuitton’s red tight fit dress made for Michelle William’s

grand debut on the Red Carpet at the 84th Annual Academy Awards in Hollywood in

2012. The strapless Louis Vuitton dress emphasizes the woman’s shape of her body,

keeps her body in place utilizing a corset, reduces mobility due to the tightness around

the legs and creates a strong hourglass appearance through the ruffles surrounding her

upper waist (see Figure 3.2 and 3.3). Women have historically been treated as inferior to

men in many cultures and time periods. Highlighting feminine features in fashion can be

used to objectify women and further instigate the notions of superiority and inferiority of

men defined by gender norms (Gray, “Alexander McQueen: Challenging Gender Norms

in Fashion”). When a man sees a woman revealing her feminine features and body, he

immediately believes she has had prior sexual experience, which is almost never true.

Viewing a woman as having sexual experience leads a man to believe she is less logical

than a man because she gives herself away more often. This leads to the creation of a

superiority and inferiority complex among different sexes and causes this gender binary

and objectification.

 
   60  

In contrast, Alexander McQueen uses the signifier of ruffles to contest the norms

of dress for women. Rather than accentuating women’s curves, the woman’s slim waist is

cached under the signifier of the baggy ruffles, and rather than having straps that

perfectly frame the bust area with defined cups that push up her breasts, the upper half is

flat and the shoulders and neck are covered, hiding any female erogenous areas. The lack

of skin showing from McQueen’s design contrasts with the current trend of flesh that is

seen in fashion. Society has taken advantage of skin as sexy, but McQueen utilizes the

baggy ruffles, flat bust and slim waist as a signified of going against what society desires

to see by covering up the body and making it seem more androgynous and equal to that

of man. McQueen defines beauty as the personality and core of a woman, not her body

and gender. For this reason, McQueen chose to cover up the woman with excess to hide

her body and allow her to reveal her true self. Through this design, McQueen sends a

message that women do not have to wear revealing clothes and continuously expose their

body, but that they can be seen for who they are by confronting these gender norms.

3.2 2012 Louis Vuitton. Note the 3.3 2012 Louis Vuitton. Note the signs of
  emphasis on the silhouette figure and a corset seen on the back on the back of
extravagant ruffles. the dress.
   61  

d. Feathers

At the beginning, Ostriches and exotic birds were used for feathers. Today, the

majority of feathers are imitations of exotic birds made from chicken, rooster and geese

feathers. This is one of the many changes that the fashion world has experienced. While

feathers have to this day remained a sign and language in clothing, over the years the

signified has changed. The feather was first

introduced in the Middle Ages, when men and

women in elite social classes decorated their

headdresses with plumes and jewelry to display

their status (Goldstein Museum of Design, 1).

The amount of feathers, typically exotic,

commonly found on hats conveyed the high rank

wearer (Goldstein Museum of Design, 1). In this

case, feathers were used as an opulent way of

garnering attention from others. This goes
against what feathers were made to do, which is
to attract attention or to intimidate.
3.4 2009. An example of how Alexander
McQueen ruffles up white swan feathers
as a means of scaring anyone who tries to
get close to the woman.

In other cases, as seen in the Moulin Rouge, feathers are an erotic sign. However,

the main signified of the signifier of feathers is of emancipation, mobility, individuality

and freedom. This signified was first introduced onto the signifier of feathers by Yves

Saint Laurent’s 1960 design to promote sexual liberation. He paralleled women to being

as free as birds (Stratford, “Birds of Paradise. Plumes and Feathers in Fashion”).

McQueen uses the signifier of feathers in his design as a protective purpose, just like

 
   62  

birds use feathers as a protective function. He uses the ruffling up of the feathers as a

signified to protect women and scare away anyone who tries to place gender stereotypes

on them or violate their right and to show men that women are fierce and intimidating

(see Figure 3.4). His dramatic use of feathers gives the signified an even harsher and

intimidating feel to women so as to not make them seem fragile. Birds had always

fascinated McQueen and even more specifically birds of prey, “Birds in flight fascinate

me. I admire eagles and falcons. I’m inspired by a feather but also its color, its graphics,

its weightlessness and its engineering. It is so elaborate. In fact I try and transpose the

beauty of a bird to women” (Bolton, 70). The woman therefore, is no longer a woman or

a bird. She is a new creature, a hybrid, genderless, mysterious and unknown. Free to be

perceived as she wishes.

i. Ostrich Feathers

McQueen specifically used the signifier of Ostrich feathers in his feather dress

due to his close connection with the Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales was one of

Alexander McQueen’s first customers as well as the first man to present McQueen with

the award for British designer of the year in 2001 (The

Telegraph, “Alexander McQueen”). Till the seventeenth

century, Ostrich feathers were worn on hats of cavaliers

to proclaim their social status as physically and sexually

dominant males (Williams, 129-130). Although, Ostrich

feathers have now become a commodity to the public,

one of the sole aristocrats to still use it is the Prince of 3.5 The emblem of the Prince of
Wales’ feathers.

 
   63  

Wales. The Prince of Wales wears a heraldic badge called the Prince of Wales’s feathers

that consists of three white ostrich feathers emerging from a gold coronet with multiple

differing crosses (see Figure 3.5) (Prince of Wales, “Prince of Wales's Feathers”). Due to

the hardness, toughness and durability of the feather, the ostrich feathers on the badge are

a signified of a “shield for peace” that surrounds the aristocrat, in the old times a signified

of a shield for jousting (Williams, 65). Due to McQueen’s close connection to the Prince

of Wales, McQueen’s signifier of ostrich feathers is very similar in that its signified is

that of a shield to protect women once again from imposed cultural gender norms and

male dominant power.

ii. Duck Feathers

Being of Scottish origin, McQueen was known as a Romantic Nationalist. This

was noted in his 1995 collection Highland Rape that spoke to the ethnic cleansing and

rapes that the British forces committed in the Scottish Highlands in the eighteenth and

nineteenth century (Bolton, 84). His collection was a powerful and heartfelt declaration

of his Scottish national identity. His nationalism to his Scottish identity as well as Celtic

is also seen through his choice of the signifier of duck feathers in the feather dress. Ducks

can walk on land, swim and fly, therefore allowing them to roam the earth and sky. This

allows the duck to be a signified of freedom and liberty, much like other birds. For the

Celtics, whom McQueen felt close too, ducks symbolized a balance between the physical,

emotional and spiritual worlds that can only come when freely expressing oneself, like

ducks do (Morton, “Duck”). McQueen utilizes the signifier duck feathers as a signified

for women to express themselves freely like ducks do to create a state of balance in the

 
   64  

world. This state of balance is further emphasized by the use of a feather’s weight in old

times as a scale of Balance and Order (Panek, “A Seeker's Thoughts”).

e. Feather Dress Conclusion

Feathers and birds are a recurring motif in McQueen’s collections. Although in

the past feathers were generally a signified of value and refinement, it is evident that

contemporary designers such as Yves Saint Laurent and Alexander McQueen have

transformed the signified of feathers into freedom, spirituality, balance and strength.

Rather than focus on the victimization of women through fashion, McQueen chose to

focus on the predatory traits women behold. “These are clothes for strong women”

(Hoare, 148).

C. Antler Dress

The next ensemble to be decoded is the 2006 ready-to-wear antler dress from The

Widows of Culloden collection (see Figure 3.6). The signs found within the Gazelle dress

are the resin antlers, lace, exaggerated forms, silk tulle bridal veil and ruffles. Therefore

the signs within this garment system are categorized as form, accessory and fabric.

 
   65  

3.6 2006 Resin Antler Dress.

a. Silhouette

Unlike, Chanel who wanted to omit the natural form of the woman and many

unnecessary constricting frills; McQueen utilizes a woman’s silhouette to exaggerate her

form, waist and hip lines and movements (Howes, 4). McQueen says, “I was interested in

the idea that there are no constraints on the silhouette. I wanted to exaggerate a woman’s

form, almost along the lines of a classical statue” (Bolton, 105). McQueen chooses to

embrace femininity by utilizing its signifiers of exaggeration of the idealization of the

female form. McQueen wants to show that although women are restrained through the

exaggeration of their female form, the exaggeration of the body is a signified of

underlying strength of women and their utilization of sensuality as a form of attack, much

like the femme fatale. McQueen embraces the female form and tries to use the least

 
   66  

amount of male forms possible in his designs to show that women are strong even

without men. They did not need male signifiers to be strong. Their sensuality as a

signifier was already a signified of strength in its own. “When you see a woman wearing

McQueen, there’s a certain hardness to the clothing that makes her look powerful. It kind

of fends people off” (Bolton, 60). In this case, women’s fertility becomes a power and

armor. In the antler dress, McQueen utilizes the silhouette to embrace the darker more

primal power of women, rather than replacing their power with more masculine

signifiers. “I try to push the silhouette. To change the silhouette is to change the thinking

of how we look” (Bolton, 150). He further emphasizes women’s power of sensuality

through the use of the signifier of ruffles.

b. Ruffles

Ruffles always served as a symbol of higher class, however in this case, McQueen

creates the signifier of ruffles by using exaggerating amounts of tulle to make incredible

volume, further more exaggerating the signified of the power of the women and her place

in society.

c. Lace

Lastly, McQueen creates an erotic effect through the use of the signifier of lace

which creates a see-through effect that reveals the body beneath the clothing, therefore

breaking through the masculinity of the body to portray their signified of the power of the

sensuality of a woman.

 
   67  

d. Resin Antlers and Veil

The signifier of resin antlers represent a deer’s antlers, which are only grown by

male species. Placing the signifier on women is a signified of the strength and equal

power females have to males. The signifier instills strength and protection to women who

are more vulnerable. Antlers shed and grow ever year, therefore bearing a second

signified of fertility and rebirth. This can be seen as sign of women being reborn as a

something unknown and genderless, a hybrid.

The antlers as a signified of masculinity pierce through the silk tulle veil. “When

we put the antlers on the model and then draped over it the lace embroidery that we had

made, we had to poke them through a £2,000 piece of work. But then it worked because it

looks like she’s rammed the piece of lace with her antlers. There’s always spontaneity.

You’ve got to allow for that in my shows” (Bolton, 179). Throughout history, veils have

been a signified of symbolism and status (Choron, 58). Throughout the years, the

signified transformed to strength in women’s sensuality. It came to be used to cover the

face of women during special occasions such as weddings or funerals, so as to not kill

men with their beauty (Choron, 63). This inhibition of a woman’s power and sensuality

disturbed McQueen. The antler dress was part of The Widows of Culloden Collection that

was designed to tell the story of the countless widows that stemmed from the 1746 Battle

of Culloden (MET, “Widows of Culloden”). Therefore, the utilization of a veil as a sign

of mourning was a must since women were forced to shield their beauty from other men

during their time of mourning. Thapan’s theory of deconstruction of fashion to obliterate

constructed societal norms comes into play here when McQueen utilizes the signifier to

create an effect of romantic entrapment, but then deconstructs its signified by piercing it

 
   68  

with a fierce, masculine strength. This causes a shift in the veils signified from

entrapment of feminine power and beauty to strength and sensuality. “I spent a long time

learning how to construct clothes, which is important to do before you can deconstruct

them” (Bolton, 30).

e. Antler Dress Conclusion

Unlike Chanel, who endeavors to strengthen women by chiefly making them

equal to man, McQueen decides to utilize the social constructs of the idealized feminine

form to his advantage to show that women do not need men or need to assimilate to

masculine gender norms to be strong. McQueen has helped break down gender

stereotypes for women and men even more so by helping to liberate, strengthen and free

women from their sexuality by transforming them into genderless hybrid creatures with

strong feminine and masculine signs of power. He uses what women were born with as a

means of instilling them with a sense of power. Therefore, overcoming this sense of

inferiority of the male body and making the features of the female body equally as

powerful. In this case, rather than work against gender performativity, McQueen utilizes

gender performativity to his advantage to instill fear of women’s sensuality in society.

McQueen goes on to say, “I try to modify fashion like scientists by offering what is

relevant to today and what will continue to be so tomorrow. I do this to transform

mentalities more than the body” (Numéro, “Alexander McQueen”). McQueen still

manages to change society’s reaction to this repetitive social act because he changes the

context of the signs and symbols in a way to remove explicit difference between men and

women.

 
   69  

D. Spine Corset

The last concept decoded by Alexander McQueen is

that of the 1998 haute couture spine corset (see Figure 3.7).

The signs found within the spine corset are the corset and

the curled dog tail. Therefore, the signs within this garment

system are categorized as form. McQueen believes the back

to be the most androgynous part of the body, the most erotic

and the most vulnerable (Tutter, “Gorgeous Metamorphoses:

Alexander McQueen and Francesca Woodman”). To

McQueen “the bottom of the spine – that’s the most erotic

part of anyone’s body, man or woman” (Fisher, “Bright Star:

The Rise and Rise of Alexander McQueen, the Bad Boy of 3.7 1997 modern aluminum
corset with black leather.
British Fashion”). Many feminists consider corsets to this day “a product of patriarchy

dominated sexual culture” that defines women’s bodies as sexually desirable and

encloses them in rigid positions that create a cultural sense of enslavement (MacNevin,

“The Corset: Is It Feminist”) (Workman, 70). Unlike Chanel, who viewed corsets as

gender enslavement, McQueen utilizes the aluminum corset as a sign of female

empowerment. Once again, he utilizes a woman’s femininity as a valuable and powerful

construct that should be exalted. He uses a woman’s sexuality as a means for revenge in

this world that has victimized her power and autonomy. He “wanted to create a femme

fatale, a strong woman, a sexual woman, a dangerous woman” (Kunzle, 245). McQueen

 
   70  

utilizes the notion of the femme fatale once again to place a signified of sexual power on

women’s corsets.

a. Corset in S&M culture as Female Strength

To define the corset as a sign of sexual power, McQueen looked to the S&M

culture he was known for portraying through his designs. In S&M, “the dominatrix wears

her corset as armor,” therefore controlling whoever is around her and protecting herself

(Steele, “The Corset: A Cultural History,” 116). The signifier of the corset in this sexual

context shifts from a signified of “women’s plight as ‘exquisite slave” (Workman, 64) to

a signified of “female sexual empowerment” (Steele, “The Corset: A Cultural History,”

118). Although McQueen shifted the signified of the corset, the form of the corset that

creates a small waist “remained a signifier of nubile femininity and fertility” (Steele,

“The Corset: A Cultural History,” 119).

b. Curled Dog Tail

An additional androgynous edge is added to the spine corset through the signifier

of the curled dog tail at the end of lower back. The curled dog tail could be alluding to a

signifier of a human animal hybrid or to a huntress wearing remains of her prey. In dogs

with curly tails, the more aroused a dog gets the tighter its tail curls, this is also called a

gay tail. The signifier’s signified here is an erotic function of the androgynous area of the

body that is felt by both man and women alike. The androgynous’ of the signifier is

furthermore emphasized through the placement of an erect tail, which can be seen as a

signifier of an erect male erogenous zone, onto a socially deemed feminine product, such

 
   71  

as the corset. The signifier is transformed into a metamorphic hermaphrodite with a

signified of male strength, allowing for women to defend their backs against predators.

McQueen does not utilize male signifiers very often, but when he does it is to create a

hybrid. He attempts to evoke women that instill fear by making them into an

androgynous weapon. When utilizing the word weapon throughout this paper, it is not

meant to denote the transformation of a woman into something that could inflict bodily

harm to someone else. The use of the word weapon is used to represent the

transformation of a woman into a weapon of defense as a means of contending against

another cultural or societal force. The woman is neither man nor woman, but rather a

creature. She is genderless.

c. Spine Corset Conclusion

McQueen makes it so “the modern-day woman wears a corset on the outside of

her clothing as a sign of her sexual liberation, power and prowess rather than the

traditional idea of the corset as a tool of repression and restriction” (Stover, “The Return

of the Tight Squeeze”). McQueen breaks through gender boundaries by utilizing the tools

gender performativity offers and bending them. Rather than see repetitive social acts and

constructs that society imposes onto women to create a gender binary as a sign of

weakness and limitation of gender expression, McQueen utilizes these gender cultural

norms as a means of elevating femininity from its currently disgraced state as weak and

derogatory. Essentially, McQueen is “valuing women for being women” (Shaw, 17).

E. Prelude to Analysis

 
   72  

In the next chapter, we will do a quick compare and contrast of the two methods

in which Alexander McQueen and Coco Chanel went about endeavoring to break the

gender norms of their relative time period. Analyzing the methods in which the two

designers utilized the power of their signs during their respective time periods will allow

me to uncover whether there was an evolution of gender stereotypes and whether signs

are being used to break down gender norms in a different manner today. An analysis will

be done on the utilization of signifiers as a way of constructing and deconstructing

societal gender norms of the time, the utilization of objects that are close to designers in

their garments as statements of women’s strength against brutal forces of society, the

utilization of male or female signs to make the female stronger, and the evolution of

female signifiers from the early twentieth century to today. An accumulation of all the

data in the next chapter will help us infer whether there has been an evolution of gender

stereotypes, signs and methodologies between the two designers and their respective eras

and will help us uncover where were revolve around the question of the breaking or

reinforcing of gender norms through fashion today.

CHAPTER 4

 
   73  

Is there Evidence of An Evolution?

After decoding some of the signs found within Alexander McQueen and Coco

Chanel’s designs, one can infer that they both helped break gender norms through two

very different yet similar means. McQueen and Chanel both utilized similar signifiers to

construct and deconstruct gender identity but differed in their approach and methodology.

In this chapter, this study will compare and contrast the signs utilized by both designers

in order to allow me to uncover whether there was an evolution of gender stereotypes and

whether signs are being used to liberate gender norms in a different manner today.

A. Accessibility

The first matter that will be discussed is the similarity and evolution in the

accessibility of Alexander McQueen and Chanel’s clothing from the twentieth century to

today. As aforementioned, in the earlier twentieth century, Chanel’s clothing was

available to the upper and middle class, but not to the lower class. Although, her clothing

was not available to the lower class, her accessories, such as her costume jewelry, was

accessible to all classes. Much like Chanel, McQueen too believed in the idea of creating

designs that were accessible to all classes. He too deems that “the idea of mixing luxury

and mass-market fashion is very modern, very now – no one wears head-to-toe designer

any more” (Bolton, 102). The inspiration of her clothing on the other hand was accessible

to all classes through the trickle-down effect. Her inspiration would be taken and

recreated by different designers into garments that were more affordable for the lower

 
   74  

class. This allowed the lower class to rebel against cultural norms and endeavor to break

gender norms as well. The same is seen today with McQueen’s designs. The difference

herein lies in that there has been an evolution in the number of mediums clothing can be

sold through now. With the creation of the Internet, websites now allow ordinary every

day people to rent or purchase McQueen clothing at discounted prices. This gives the

lower class the opportunity to wear the haute couture and ready-to-wear outfits designed

by McQueen himself allowing them to experience what it feels like to break through

gender norms through the creators who started the movement themselves. This digital era

has allowed luxury designers to cater to an even vaster audience then a century ago,

therefore allowing the breaking of gender norms through their own designs to permeate

even lower in the social strata.

B. Manipulating Culturally Gendered Constructed Signs

It is clear from the last two analyses that both designers utilized many signs to go

against how society defined gender. In the 1920s and 1950s, society imposed this ideal of

women as constricted, refrained from doing manual labor and impelled to do domestic

labor which was mirrored in the clothing designed for women by male designers. Their

clothing was revealing of the erotic feminine areas and over-emphasized the naturalness

of the female body. Men on the other hand, were free to work, fight in the war and dress

comfortably. Chanel reacted by allowing women to move more freely, take a more

authoritative non-verbal stance and allow them to feel empowered to take action through

her dress and designs. She did this by mainly creating designs that were loose, covered up

the natural shape of a woman’s body and did not emphasize physical gender differences,

 
   75  

with the exception of a couple of designs such as the Camellia dress. Although to this day

women have made huge strides, society is still trying to contain women to their limited

domestic role. To support this claim, recall the data presented in chapter three. Today

women are being limited from excelling in the workforce through the lingering wage gap

between genders and the lack of qualified women who are not being placed in executive

level positions. However, the difference lies in the designs. Unlike the 1920s and 1950s

that over emphasized women’s bodies by covering them up with frills and ruffles,

clothing designs imposed by society today revolve around tight and revealing clothing.

This causes a reversal in McQueen’s reaction to society’s imposed gender norms. Unlike

Chanel, who chooses to make women’s clothing more revealing and loose and

deemphasize women’s physical features, McQueen chooses to cover up women’s body’s

by adding extra ruffles and frills, while still leaving plenty of space for women to move

freely, and emphasizes a woman’s natural features. This way caching the skin that society

so fervently wants to see, while simultaneously going against society by using a woman’s

body and sexuality as a weapon rather then allowing it to be seen as weak and

derogatory. The similarity herein lays in the designer’s transformation of societal gender

constructed signs to go against how society wants to view women. The difference is in

the method in which the designers had to attack these novel gender stereotypes. It is clear

that there has been an evolution of gender stereotypes, but this will be delved into even

deeper in the next chapter.

 
   76  

C. Silhouettes

During Chanel’s era, women’s busts and curves were emphasized to make it

difficult for them to labor in the workplace, to eroticize the female figure in a derogatory

manner and to further emphasize the physical gender differences between male and

female bodies. Chanel blurred gender boundaries by freeing women from curved bodies

by flattening the bust, therefore creating an androgynous body shape. This allowed

women to feel equal to men. McQueen utilizes the same signs today as a means of

freeing women from similar gender constraints. He makes women’s bodies more

androgynous and equal to man by flattening women’s chests and hiding their female

erogenous areas to go against what society desires to see. This androgyny is further

explored in both eras by both designers through the exploitation of the back, or the

bottom of the spine, as an erotic yet androgynous area. Once again blurring gender lines

through their designs in similar manners across a century.

D. Can a Male Designer be a Feminist?

The most evident difference between the methodology of the two designers that

could be seen as problematic is the fact that Chanel is a woman endeavoring to break

gender norms for women, while McQueen is a man endeavoring to break gender norms

for women. In a recent 1994 headline of an article in the New Straits Times, Chanel is

remembered stating that when she “first banished corsets in favor of comfort, she argued

that women know best what women want.” The article went on to elaborate on how

Chanel claimed that:

 
   77  

“Men were not meant to dress women, Coco Chanel once said of her right to

design for her own sex. “Was he mad, this man?” she said of Christian Dior and

his exaggerated New Look of the Fifties. “Was he making fun of women? How,

dressed in ‘that old thing’ could they come and go, live or anything?” (New

Straits Times, “Sex In the Wardrobe”)

Chanel makes a sound argument. What actually lies behind what seems to be male

feminism is misogyny. Most men feel that by standing up for women they are ultimately

saving them, which is simply just another version of misogyny. However, this does not

mean that men cannot deem themselves feminists. To be a feminist a man needs to want

to help women without the idea in mind that he is saving them (Berlatsky, “Can Men

Really Be Feminists?”). A true male feminist acknowledges that as long as women are

free, men will not be either, which is exactly what McQueen does (Berlatsky, “Can Men

Really Be Feminists?”). McQueen is quoted speaking about being aware of the difference

between what it means to be a feminist and misogyny stating:

“I design clothes because I don’t want women to look innocent and naïve, I want

women to look stronger! I don’t like women being taken advantage of. I don’t like

men whistling at women in the street. They deserve more respect. I like men to

keep their distance from women. I like men to be stunned by an entrance. I’ve

seen a woman get nearly beaten to death by her husband. I now what misogyny is.

I want people to be afraid of the women I dress.” (McQueen)

 
   78  

Questioning femininity is essentially questioning what it is to be a woman and a man,

because women are inescapably associated with femininity and men with masculinity.

This ideology of misogyny “is a cage for everyone, as long as women aren’t free, men

won’t be either” (Berlatsky, “Can Men Really Be Feminists?”).

Whether Chanel would consent to what McQueen is doing or not, he is still

helping women break through gender norms, and not necessarily saving them. What

further supports this statement is the fact that he himself was openly gay. In 2005, a New

York Times article revealed statistics regarding awards given by the Council of Fashion

Designers of America. The data showed that out of the thirty-seven prizes awarded by the

Council of Fashion Designers of America since 1986, eight went to women and twenty-

nine to men (De Castella, “Fashion Week: Why Are Women Finally Designing Women's

Clothes?”). What made this statistic even more interesting was the fact that twenty of

those men were openly gay (De Castella, “Fashion Week: Why Are Women Finally

Designing Women's Clothes?”). Ever since this article was posted, a younger generation

of female designers has arisen such as Isabel Marant, Stella McCartney, Miuccia Prada

and Sarah Burton. This raises the question of whether men are still trying to control

women by designing clothing for women themselves and if they are giving women the

permission to change gender norms only on their command. Further analysis shows that

in the twenty-first century this is not the case. Twenty of the male designers who won the

award were gay, which shows that the majority of the designers also come from a

marginalized community much like that of women. Women and the gay community are

similar in that after decades of hiding and being ashamed of who they are and what they

 
   79  

want to be, they finally are accepting their sexuality and beginning to endeavor to live

how they choose. Gay males related to women because they too have suffered through

similar levels of oppression such as women. McQueen states, “I came to terms with not

fitting in a long time ago. I never really fit in. I don’t want to fit in” (Bolton, 35).

Through this close relationship with women, the gay community represents another piece

of the marginalized community that is trying to break gender norms as well and

overcome the gender stereotypes society imposes on them.

The argument that women design for themselves while men design for women as

an object is also misleading. As a gay designer, typically “men design what they would

wear if they were a woman” (New Straits Times, “Sex In the Wardrobe”). When

designing for his female alter ego, McQueen is endeavoring to bring himself closer to the

female species. McQueen elaborates on this notion by explaining how when designing

for women on the runway he either was designing for his female alter ego or for his

powerless, sexually, physically and mentally abused sister. This was his image of women

and he did not want that. That is why “Janet became “the blueprint” for his clothes, a

woman who was “vulnerable but strong.” Sometimes the woman on the runway was

McQueen himself, other times it was Janet” (Wilson, “Fierce, Feathered and Fragile”).

There has been an evolution in the last century in that as the attempt to blur gender lines

evolved, women were no longer the only ones who felt marginalized in society. It was no

longer men versus women, but it now was a multitude of smaller marginalized groups

that felt genderless as well that understood women’s constraint of gender norms. Women

are no longer the only beings who know what women want to wear, but the gay

marginalized group who has also experienced the same suffering as women in the last

 
   80  

century feels the need to break through the gender norms imposed on them. This is why

McQueen designing for women in the twenty-first century does not make him a

misogynist but makes him a feminist.

E. Extent to which Signs are emphasized

Both designers utilize an object that is very close to them in many of their

garments as a statement of a woman’s strength against the brutal forces of society.

Chanel utilizes the sign of the Camellia flower in her clothing as a signified of strength of

women both physically and sexually. Birds and feathers are a signifier of the same ideas

of eroticism and intimidation that are reflected as a signified onto women of their

freedom and power. In both cases, these powerful erotic signs are used as a means to

protect women, scare away anyone who tries to place gender stereotypes on them and

show that they are fierce and intimidating. This allows the designers to remove the

derogatory ideology that has been stereotyped on women both of the twentieth and

twenty-first century as week and fragile and allow society to see women as a beautiful

force to be reckoned with. The difference herein lies in the designer’s choice of the

object. Chanel’s use of the Camellia is more subtle and enchanting. She doesn’t

necessary utilize it is powers to the fullest extent, still allowing some leeway for female

gender stereotypes to seep through her designs due to the era in which she lived.

McQueen on the other hand, doesn’t hold back in his utilization of the birds and feathers,

consequently creating a full-blown androgynous creature. It is neither male nor female,

neither bird nor woman. We will reintroduce the extent to which each designer could use

their skills in culture in the conclusion, which will examine even the use of male

 
   81  

signifiers.

F. Obscuring Masculine or Feminine Text

Chanel pushes the liberation of women further by using signifiers from male

garments in women’s to blur gender lines. Wool, three quarter sleeves, black and bowties

were all signifiers that were worn more often by men than women as a signified of

authority and labor. Today, McQueen refuses to solely use male signifiers to empower

women, but rather, he decides to utilize more feminine sensual characteristics and mix

male and female signs as signifiers instead as a signified of their equal strength to men

and make the human body more androgynous. Unlike Chanel, who endeavors to

strengthen women by chiefly making them equal to man, McQueen decides to utilize the

social constructs of the idealized feminine form more often than Chanel to his advantage

to show that women do not need men to be strong. Although McQueen embraced more of

the female form then male signifiers, he too occasionally used male signifiers such as

Ostrich feathers and antlers to create a “creature” or “hybrid.” Both designers use male

signifiers to make woman more equal to men and they both go one step further and use

male signifiers to completely blur gender lines, turning humans into an androgynous

weapon, neither male nor female. However, there has been a clear evolution in the

visibility of male signifieds in garments from the 1920s to today. Chanel used to obscure

masculine text through the use of finishing touches so as to avoid making extremely

harsh gender statements and sidestep some gender controversies. McQueen on the other

hand refused to obscure any masculine text and decided to set it free.

 
   82  

G. Evolution of Femininity

It is evident that Chanel placed an emphasis on the incorporation of male

signifiers in women’s garments and was critical of the construction of feminine signifiers.

This is noted by her view of the corset as a means of gender enslavement. To Chanel,

corsets were a female signifier used to restrict movements and construct an over

exaggerated feminine body with artificial curves that ignored the natural lines. Today,

there has been a drastic evolution of the female signifier of the corset and in the definition

of femininity. The corset is no longer a signified of an artificial restricted woman but it is

seen as a signified of female empowerment, sexual power and modern femininity. The

evolution of female signifiers, such as the corset, and their impact on the modern day

connotation of femininity, will be further analyzed in the subsequent chapter.

H. Conclusion

In this chapter we have compared and contrasted the ways in which Chanel and

McQueen utilized similar signifiers as a way of constructing and deconstructing gender

identity. We also uncovered the way in which both designers have utilized similar

signifiers and evolved or transformed their signifieds over the years. Lastly, we examined

the methods both designers used in constructing gender through their garment systems

and evaluated how they were relevant to their time periods. In the last chapter, we will

explore in more depth the evolution of gender stereotypes, signs and methodologies the

designers used and attempt to uncover where we stand on the question of gender

liberation through fashion today.

 
   83  

CHAPTER 5

Evolution Conclusion

Fashion of the 1920s, 1950s and today have a critical impact on self-expression.

Each era used similar signs with an altered signified or different signs to aid in the

breaking of gender norms and stereotypes. From these reflections, an evolution of gender

stereotypes was drawn from a difference in the extent to which Chanel and McQueen

used their signs as powers of gender bending in society and an evolution of female

signifiers from the 1920s to today. In this final chapter, this study will expound on the

evolution of signifieds and signifiers in the breaking of gender norms from the early

twentieth century to today. Finally, this study will aim to emphasize that if we can better

articulate the meaning behind fashion designs as a means to influence our own gender

understanding, we can better recognize the importance of the power that fashion has on

societal gender views and its influence over not only individuality, but culture as well.

A. Evolution of Gender Stereotypes of Femininity and Masculinity

From the 1920s to today, there has been an evolution of gender stereotypes of

femininity and masculinity. In the early twentieth century, women were compelled to

cover up their body with frills and extra fabric while simultaneously over emphasizing

and over exaggerating their female body features making them seem weak and fragile.

There sexuality was confined, as it was inappropriate for women to show skin because it

was fetishized by culture. Exposing skin or fetish fashions, which always started at lower

class levels, was perceived as the costume of “perverts and prostitutes” (Lunning, 109).

 
   84  

Rather than crave women’s flesh, men were threatened by it, a concept that is very

different from what culture perceives as attractive today. The response to gender

stereotypes taken by both Chanel and McQueen was more of a feminist protest

antifashion against the patriarchy that has managed over the centuries to oppress women

and to relegate them to inferior roles through their fashion garments. Chanel endeavored

to close the gap between classes and gender roles employing a utilitarian antifashion

outrage strategy. She created a counterculture that distanced women from cultural norms,

weakened them and scandalized its dominant culture group.

Chanel attacked these gender stereotypes by deconstructing the societal norm of

femininity and masculinity by uncovering women’s bodies, streamlining and erasing the

waist from the silhouette, emphasizing plunging necklines and backs and exposing arms

and lower legs. She essentially created an “androgynous dress code that would broaden

the discussion of the relationship between the sexes” (Buxbaum, 32). The signifier of

exposing neck, back, arms and calves was assigned a signified of female liberation. As

women began to smoke, drink and become more promiscuous and blunt about their

sexual attractiveness they began to expose their sexuality even more, therefore signifying

their freedom to utilize their sexuality as they please in society. We can see Chanel’s

attack on this gender stereotype take an even more modern stance in the 1950s, when the

hemlines rose even more, consequently bearing more skin around the calf area. As time

progressed however, women’s body exposure lost its signified of female liberation and

challenging social convention. As more women began adopting the fashion of exposing

their bodies through their clothing, the signified of less clothing adorning the body shifted

to the signified it is today.

 
   85  

To back up my inference that the revealing of skin through clothing became

inefficient as a signifier of female liberation and that its signified changed, this study will

call upon historian James Laver’s 1969 theory of Shifting Erogenous Zones (Reilly, 40).

The naked body as a whole is anti-erotic because it leaves nothing to the imagination.

Therefore, when adorning clothing, over time different parts of the body are exposed

consequentially becoming eroticized (Reilly, 40). When a particular body becomes

overexposed, it is no longer sexually enticing, so a new area of the body needs to be

exposed. This explains why styles of women’s fashion change in order to reveal different

body parts (Reilly, 45). In Chanel’s case, in the 1920s the legs, arms, back and neck

became eroticized through her clothing as she covered and flattened the breasts.

However, as the years progressed, the signifier of exposed calves and back no longer

threatened men as the erogenous zones changed from the back in the 1930s, the shoulders

in the 1940s and 1950s and again the legs in the 1960s (Reilly, 47). Psychologist John

Flugel writes about how the fashion industry tends to fixate on one particular body part

until its exhausted all of its erotic potential (Nasrulla, 73). Chanel’s eroticized signified

wore off as men began to deconstruct and reconstruct the signifier’s meaning to fit

society’s ideals. Men had gotten so used to seeing this scandalous erogenous zone that

they became disinterested in its and it lost its effect. It normalized into society’s cultural

norms and no longer emphasized the power of a woman’s sensuality. In response, Chanel

deconstructed her fashion garments and reconstructed them, shifting the eroticized zone

over time, allowing it to remain a signified of women liberating their sexuality against

what society’s norms were at the time.

The continuous shift in erogenous zones through fashion has led to women’s

 
   86  

bodies being extremely exposed in society today. This continuous shift in women’s

fashion has allowed men to manipulate the tool women were using as a mediator of

gender power to their own advantage. Men have deconstructed and reconstructed the

signified of exposing skin in fashion from a signified of female liberation from societal

constraints to a signified of objectifying women. They have transformed women’s

exposure of skin in fashion into a tool that makes women feel weak, exploited and akin to

sex objects that are just pretty to look at. Once again, women are being dumbed down to

what they could actually contribute to society. Unlike Chanel who was trying to uncover

women’s bodies to go against the gender stereotypes of her époque that forced women to

cover up, today McQueen goes against the gender norm of women exposing their bodies

by covering them up. David Wolfe, creative director of The Doneger Group, a fashion

merchandising and consulting firm in New York claims, “you can get shocked for only so

long, we are reaching the saturation point with extremism” (Nasrulla, 24). McQueen

expresses women’s femininity and female power without showing skin. In the early

twentieth century, there was a utilitarian outrage at the fashion garments being created

with extra layers of fabric. In the twenty-first century there is a reimplementation of extra

fabric and frills placed over the body that is utilized to make a mockery of societies own

tool to make women inferior. McQueen realizes that no matter what women endeavor to

do to break free from these gender norms, society will always manage to deconstruct and

reconstruct their signifier’s signified. That’s why he decides to use women’s own bodies,

sexuality, and femininity as a weapon of defense while simultaneously making a mockery

of any form of oppression society tries to inflict on women by deconstructing and

reconstructing their signifieds.

 
   87  

B. Evolution in the Extent to which the Fetish Culture is accentuated

Aside from the evolution of gender stereotypes and different ways in which

Chanel and McQueen tackle the breaking of their époque’s gender norms, there has also

been an evolution in the magnitude with which designers use their signs to break gender

stereotypes. In the early twentieth century, Chanel did not accentuate female and male

signifieds as strongly as her counterparts today. In fact, fashion was by no means

masculine as noted by her obscuring of male signifieds with female signifieds. What

arose during this time was a shift from the focus of what lied underneath the feminine

body to the female being herself adorning clothes. The reinforcement of female sexuality

had its limits. Although Chanel managed to bind women’s breasts, straighten the

silhouette and create a boyish look, she suggested more of a remote sophistication or

sporty independence rather than overt eroticism, which is noted today. Unquestionably,

women no longer had to mold to the traditional standard of beauty of the time, which was

a big bust and small hips, because they could hide their bodies under their clothing. This

allowed them to liberate themselves both physically and socially and created a new era of

feminine independence (Blackman, 11). What Chanel managed to give women through

her signifier of the straight silhouette was a signified of respectable freedom of sexuality.

She gave women the liberty to enjoy physical freedom, but the eligibility and appearance

of a woman were still important. She created the early twentieth century signified of

androgyny that gave women greater independence and merged genders signifying a

desire to inscribe masculine power upon the female body.

However, the fetish culture Chanel instilled in a few of her garments the majority

of the time remained underground. Chanel played with the vocabulary of the fetish

 
   88  

female by removing key signs such as the corset to flatten the chest and replaced it with

leather accessories, such as the belt from her boyish look ensemble, or silk in her dresses;

however, she never made a strong long lasting statement regarding the fetish culture of

the time. Much like exposing ones skin, fetish fashions, which started at lower class

levels, were known as the costumes of “perverts and prostitutes” (Lunning, 109). As

aforementioned, women were still constrained to their appearance and eligibility if they

wished to survive in their society. Since Chanel was restrained in the magnitude with

which she could use her vestimentary signs, individualism and difference became the

prime focus of fashion in the twentieth century. Fashion garments signified power,

specifically relating to gender and social class.

This study assumes that today’s fashion has come to signify disenchantments with

the world. Due to the deconstruction of fashion as a cultural response to social and

political unrest, growing recognition of both heterosexual and homosexual male standing

in today’s society, and fashion turning into a visual arts tool that communicates

sociopolitical ideas and incites revolution, today’s fashion garments have become a

global symbol. The use of fashion garments as global signs that are globally

manufactured, globally marketed and globally distributed, have forced the individual to

become a homogenized citizen of the world (Bonnie, 214). This homogenization has led

to a blurring of gender stereotypes and an evolution in the cultural norms of femininity

and masculinity within the dominant Western culture. This globalization has led to a

pastiche of multiple classes, decades, cultures, statuses from eighteenth and nineteenth

century and today (Bonnie, 214). The fetish culture has now infused its way into fashion

and its tool has been utilized to erase help the marginalization of social classes. By

 
   89  

utilizing the reverse of the trickle-down theory, the trickle-up theory that takes the fetish

culture from a lower marginalized class and makes its way up into upper class fashion,

designers have strived to create a more homogenized culture (Simmel, 130 - 155).

Garment codes that initially differentiated marginalized groups such as the fetishists,

queers, and women from the main culture are now slowly entering mainstream societal

norms.

The second deduction is that while female and male signified were underplayed

during Chanel’s era, today female and male signifieds are overemphasized. McQueen

takes on a more aggressive embrace of sensual passion than Chanel did in the earlier

twentieth century. Today McQueen manipulates a woman’s full figure to convey a full

range of powerful sexual appetite, freely indulged and shamelessly savored (Segal, 90).

Today McQueen over exaggerates female and male signifieds and makes a mockery of

old constraints, therefore rendering them fictive. By utilizing the full force of the female

fetish culture and not caching it behind male signified, McQueen has managed to break

gender barriers. Through the utilization of female fetishist culture the line dividing what

is being aroused and what causes the arousal is ambiguous (Steele, “Fetish: Fashion, Sex,

and Power”, 12). This is an indicator that fetishism overlaps different sexual variants

(Steele, “Fetish: Fashion, Sex, and Power”, 12).

C. Evolution in Female Signifiers

Lastly, there has been an evolution in female signifiers. We can very evidently see

the change in female signifieds of certain signifiers from the twentieth century to today

by utilizing the commutation test. The commutation test, mentioned in chapter one, is a

 
   90  

test that allows us to spot if there is a change in the signified, or plane of content, by

introducing a change to the signifier, or plane of expression (Barthes, “Elements of

Semiology,” 65 – 66). By combining different signifiers within the syntagm, the user can

generate a change in meaning from the substitution that changes the expression but not

the content. In this case, the signifier of the corset will be used to show the evolution of

female signifieds. As the commutation test explains, the corset has a fixed element, the

corset itself, so the variation is seen in the change of the signified, or the adversary of

wearing the corset under garment rather than over garments. When the signifier, or the

corset, is worn under garments it is a signified of liberation constraint or women forced to

were corsets to meet the ideal beauty of the time and look attractive. However, when the

signifier is worn on the outside as it is in the twentieth century, the corset becomes a

signified of sexual power. Obviously, in today’s corsets designed by McQueen, other

elements of the garment participate in the signification as well, such as the hybrid tail

found at the end of the corset. Without the tail, the change in signification would be

impossible (Barthes, “The Fashion System,” 61).

Female signifiers have also evolved within the female fetish culture. When

Chanel created signifiers that exposed more skin, she deconstructed the female fetish of

the fashionable Victorian world and constructed women as alluring sexual objects to be

desired by men since it was something, which was frowned upon during her era. Today,

female fetish is deconstructed and conventional prettiness is left behind. A tough,

menacing and threatening woman is created instead (Lynch, 108).

 
   91  

D. Evolution in Cultural Norms of Femininity and Masculinity

Each and every one of these evolutions culminates in an evolution in both the

cultural norms of femininity and masculinity. Since the twentieth century, the definition

of femininity has evolved. Although its signified is still associated with traits such as

being weak and dependent, we are beginning to see a shift in the signified to embracing

one’s own identity. Today, femininity is not about being weak, submissive and afraid of

revealing and using one’s own body, but it is about harnessing one’s body’s strength,

power and sexuality. The shift in the signified of femininity has respectively caused a

shift in the signified of masculinity. When women chose to wear male signs in their

clothing, they chose to redefine not only what it meant to be feminine but what it meant

to be masculine as well. By wearing male signs, women managed to feminize masculine

clothing. The deconstruction of these gender norms has allowed women and men to get

one step closer to gender equality. It has now become more acceptable for men to

perform duties previously performed by women, such as cleaning and cooking, and for

women to enter the workforce that was solely carried out by men in the past.

Nevertheless, until women’s fashion with masculine signs compromises men’s

power, and men’s fashion with masculine signs gives women more power and equality,

will androgyny ever truly exist? Until designers continue taking what is thought of as

powerful and respectable from males and applying it to women because they do not want

it to be viewed as erratic, emotional and frivolous, we continue to emphasize the gender

roles of men and women. By blurring the cultural norms of femininity and masculinity

through fashion, designers have come a long way and are getting closer to creating a

genderless hybrid. Designers need to continue to challenge gender stereotypes and gender

 
   92  

performativity before society ceases assigning power based on gender and reaches true

androgyny, something that McQueen got really close to accomplishing through his use of

animal characteristics rather than gender characteristics to place power.

E. Conclusion

The lasting footprints of the twentieth century movements are remarkable. Since

the 1920s, women have steadily been obtaining greater independence in choosing what

they should wear, when they could wear it, and in front of whom. With the help of

Chanel and McQueen, women have gained more power in their gender liberation and

more control over their bodies. Instead of using their voices to help change the political

status of women, Chanel and McQueen use their clothing designs to give women greater

freedom of choice in what they wore and how they presented themselves. They

encouraged women to go against societal norms and stand up for their wants and desires.

As aforesaid, McQueen was aware that clothes, no matter how sharply tailored,

ultimately could not protect women from the societies imposed constraints. That is why

both designers adorned their garments with controversial signs, accessories, specific

fabrics and animal parts. The signifieds that are constructed that liberate women, will

continue to be torn apart, deconstructed and remodeled by society as they try and keep

control over a woman’s gender role in society. However, with the help of designers such

as Chanel and McQueen, new methods of overcoming this reinforcing of gender norms

will arise until these gender stereotypes of femininity and masculinity are diluted into

androgyny. By having designers such as Chanel and McQueen create designs for women

to wear that do not restrict them to society’s standard gender norms, Chanel and

 
   93  

McQueen have given women the chance to have their cultural values to shine through

throughout history.

 
   94  

Works Cited
"Alexander McQueen." Numéro Dec. 2007: n. pag. Print.
"Alexander McQueen." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 11 Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Dec.
2014. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/celebrity-
obituaries/7216283/Alexander-McQueen.html>.
Allen, Frederick Lewis. Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s. New York: Harper
& Row, 1931. Print.
Alston, Isabella, and Kathryn Dixon. Coco Chanel. Charlotte, North Carolina: TAJ Books
International, 2014. Internet resource.
"Art Deco Costume Jewelry." Collectors Weekly. Market Street Media LLC, 2007. Web. 22
Mar. 2015. <http://www.collectorsweekly.com/costume-jewelry/art-deco>.
Barnard, Malcolm. Fashion Theory: An Introduction. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014.
Internet resource.
Barthes, Roland, Annette Lavers, and Colin Smith. Elements of Semiology. New York: Hill and
Wang, 1968. Print.
Barthes, Roland. The Fashion System. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983. Print.
Barthes, Roland, and Andy Stafford. The Language of Fashion. Oxford: Berg, 2006. Print.
Barthes, Roland. The Semiotic Challenge. New York: Hill and Wang, 1988. Print.
Bartky, Sandra L. Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression.

New York: Routledge, 1990. Print.

Basye, Ali. "Hang Onto Your Pearls: The Little Black Dress Is Born." On This Day In Fashion.
On This Day In Fashion, 1 Oct. 2010. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fonthisdayinfashion.com%2F%3Fp%3D6210>.
Ben-Horin, Keren. "Fashion in Black & White- Part III, Flowers." Web log post. ON PINS
AND NEEDLES. Wordpress, 6 July 2012. Web.
<http://pinsndls.com/2012/07/06/fashion-in-black-white-part-iii-flowers/>.

 
   95  

Berlatsky, Noah. "Can Men Really Be Feminists?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 05
June 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/06/men-can-be-feminists-
too/372234/>.
Bisset, Colin. "Why Chanel's Little Black Dress Has Never Gone Out of Fashion." Radio
National. ABC, 15 Dec. 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bydesign/why-chanels-little-black-dress-
has-never-gone-out-of-fashion/5155248>.
Blackman, Cally. 100 Years of Fashion Illustration. Laurence King Publishing: London 2007.
Print.
Boland, Jesse. "Art Deco Fashion." 1920s Fashion & Music. 1920s-Fashion-and-Music.com,
n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://www.1920s-fashion-and-music.com/art-deco-
fashion.html>.
Bolich, Gregory G. Crossdressing in Context: Dress, Gender, Transgender, and Crossdressing.
Raleigh, N.C: Psyche's Press, 2006. Print.
Bolton, Andrew, Alexander McQueen, Susannah Frankel, Tim Blanks, and Sølve
Sundsbø. Alexander Mcqueen: Savage Beauty. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art,
2011. Print.
Broquet, Kitrine. "Fine Fettle: Fashion Inspiration: Japonisme." Fine Fettle: Fashion

Inspiration: Japonisme. Blogspot, 7 Jan. 2011. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.

<http://finefettleguide.blogspot.com/2011/01/fashion-inspiration-japonisme.html>.
Buckley, Cheryl, and Hilary Fawcett. 2002. Fashioning the Feminine Representation and
Women’s Fashion from the Fin de Siècle to the Present. London: I. B. Tauris &
Company, Limited, Macmillan Distributor.Choron, Sandra, and Harry Choron. Planet
Wedding: A Nuptial-pedia. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. Print.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:
Routledge, 1990. Print.

 
   96  

Butler, Judith. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and
Feminist Theory." Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Ed.
Sue-Ellen Case. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1990.
Buxbaum, Gerda. Icons of Fashion, the 20th Century. Prestel Publishing: New York 2006. Print.
Calcaires, Pierres. "An Introduction to Black Color Symbolism." Noir Belge. Noirbelge, 2006.
Web. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://www.noirbelge.com/theblack01.html>.
Cavallaro, Dani, and Alexandra Warwick. Fashioning the Frame: Boundaries, Dress, and
Body. Oxford: Berg, 1998. Print.
Cavendish, Marshall. Sex and Society. Vol. 1. N.p.: Paul Bernabeo, 2010. Print.
Choron, Sandra, and Harry Choron. Planet Wedding: A Nuptial-pedia. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. Print.
"Conflicts." Forever 20s. Weebly, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
<http://forever20s.weebly.com/conflicts.html>.
Copeland, Robert M. Country Life: A Handbook of Agriculture, Horticulture, and Landscape
Gardening. Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, 2010. Print.
Crane, Diana. Fashion and Its Social Agendas: Class, Gender, and Identity in Clothing.
Chicago: U of Chicago, 2000. Print.
De Castella, Tom. "Fashion Week: Why Are Women Finally Designing Women's Clothes?"
BBC News. BBC, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.

<http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15088308>.
Derail-Imbert, Agnès, and Philippe Jaworski. Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises: Entre
Sens Et Absence. Paris: Éditions Rue D'Ulm, 2012. Print.
Dijkstra, B.. 1986 Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-siècle Culture
Oxford University Press New York & Oxford
Driscoll, Catherine. “Chanel: The Order of Things.” Fashion Theory. 2nd ed. Vol. 14. N.p.: U
of Florida, 2010. 135-58. Print

 
   97  

English, Bonnie. A Cultural History of Fashion in the 20th and 21st Centuries: From Catwalk
to Sidewalk. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. Internet resource.
Fisher, Alice. "Bright Star: The Rise and Rise of Alexander McQueen, the Bad Boy of British
Fashion." The Guardian. The Guardian, 13 Feb. 2010. Web. 5 Jan. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2F2010%2Ffeb%2F14%2Fa
ppreciation-alexander-mcqueen-alice-fisher>.
"Flights of Fancy: A History of Feathers in Fashion." Goldstein Museum of Design (Spring
2010): 1-7. Print.
Geczy, Adam, and Vicki Karaminas. Queer Style. London: New York : Bloomsburg Academic,
2013. Print.
George, Christina. "Critics Scoffed but Women Bought: Coco Chanel's Comeback Fashions
Reflect the Desires of the 1950s American Woman." The Forum: Cal Poly's Journal of
History 6.1 (2014): 79-91.Digital Commons. Web. Spring 2014.
Gompertz, Will. "Anna Wintour on Alexander McQueen's Legacy." BBC News. BBC, 24 Feb.
2011. Web. 23 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/willgompertz/2011/02/anna_wintour_o
n_alexander_mcqueens_legacy.html>.
Graziano, Frank. Wounds of Love: The Mystical Marriage of Saint Rose of Lima. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

<http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=forum>.
Gray, Annie. "Alexander McQueen: Challenging Gender Norms in Fashion." : Introduction.
Blogspot, 4 June 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.
<http://anniegrayaad252final.blogspot.com/p/introduction.html>.
Hamilton, Marybeth. "Mae West Live: "SEX, The Drag, and 1920s Broadway"" TDR Winter,
1992 36.4 (1988): 82-100. JSTOR. The MIT Press. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1146217>.

 
   98  

Hawkes, G. (1995). "Dressing-up – cross-dressing and sexual dissonance". Journal of Gender

Studies 4(3): 261–270
Heller, Eva. Psychologie De La Couleur: Effets Et Symboliques. Paris: Pyramid, 2009. Print.
Hoare, Sarajane. “God Save McQueen.” Harper’s Bazaar (June 1996): 148.
Hollander, Anne. Sex and Suits. New York: Knopf, 1994. Print.
Howard, Justin. "The Little Black Dress - Everyone's Favorite." About Style. About.com, n.d.
Web. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://fashiondesigners.about.com/od/Red-Carpet-Looks/a/The-
Little-Black-Dress-Everyones-Favorite.htm>.
Howes, David. Introduction to Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader (Oxford and
New York: Berg, 2006), 4-5.
Johnson, Merle. More Maxims of Mark. New York: n.p., 1927. Print.
Karbo, Karen. The Gospel According to Coco Chanel: Life Lessons from the World's Most
Elegant Woman. Place of publication not identified: Skirt!, 2011. EBook.
Kemmis, Judy Scott. "The Color Gray." Empowered By Color. N.p., 2009. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.empower-yourself-with-color-psychology.com/color-gray.html>.
Kidwell, Claudia B, and Valerie Steele. Men and Women: Dressing the Part. Washington, D.C:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989. Print.
Kunzle, David. Fashion & Fetishism: Corsets, Tight-Lacing & Other Forms of Body-Sculpture.
Phoenix Mill: Sutton, 2004. Print.

Lehnert, Gertrud. "Gender." Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion: Volume 8 – West
Europe. The Berg Fashion Library, Sept. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.bergfashionlibrary.com/view/bewdf/BEWDF-v8/EDch8075.xml>.
Li, Sumiao (2011), Fashionable People, Fashionable Society: Fashion, Gender, and Print
Culture in England, UMI Dissertation Publisher, Michigan.
Lunning, Frenchy. Fetish Style. Bloomsbury: London 2013. Print.
Lynch, Annette, and Mitchell D. Strauss. Changing Fashion: A Critical Introduction to Trend
Analysis and Meaning. Oxford: Berg, 2007. Print.

 
   99  

MacNevin, Suzanne. “The Corset: Is It Feminist.” Feminist Ezine. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
"Mariano Fortuny." FIDM Museum. FIDM Museum, 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
<http://blog.fidmmuseum.org/museum/2011/01/mariano-fortuny.html>.
McQueen, Alexander. "Widows of Culloden | Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty | The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York." The Metropolitan Museum of Art. MET, 2011.
Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <http://blog.metmuseum.org/alexandermcqueen/tag/widows-of-
culloden/>.
"Modernity." America in Class. National Humanities Center, 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.
<http://americainclass.org/sources/becomingmodern/modernity/text2/text2.htm>.
Money, John, Hampson, Joan G., and Hampson, John (1955) An Examination of Some Basic
Sexual Concepts: The Evidence of Human Hermaphroditism, Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp.
1955 Oct; 97(4):301-19
Morton, Andrew J., Jr. "Duck." The Blue Roebuck. Blue Roebuck, 2007. Web. 15 Jan. 2015.
<http://www.blueroebuck.com/duck.html>.
Mundy, Liza. "The Richer $ex: Women Are Overtaking Men as America's Breadwinner. Why
That's Good for Everyone." TIME 26 Mar. 2012: n. pag. The Times Digital Archive.
Web. 22 Mar. 2015.
Nasrulla, Amber. "Zoning In Overtly Sexual or Coquettishly Neo-Victorian, Erogenous Zones
Are Hot." Elle Canada n.d.: 73-76. Fashion Fengshui. Web.

O'Brien, Jodi. Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2009.
Print.
Panek, Joseph. "A Seeker's Thoughts." : The Feather As A Symbol. Blogspot, 12 Oct. 2008.
Web. 15 Jan. 2015. <http://www.aseekersthoughts.com/2008/10/feather-as-
symbol.html>.
Paoletti, Jo B. "Fashion, Dress, and Gender." The Berg Fashion Library. The Berg Fashion
Library, Sept. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

 
   100  

<http://www.bergfashionlibrary.com/page/Fashion$0020Dress$0020and$0020Gender/fas
hion-dress-and-gender>.
Pastoureau, Michel. Black: The History of a Color. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press,
2009. Print.
"Prince of Wales's Feathers." Prince of Wales. British Monarchy, 2015. Web. 15 Jan. 2014.
<http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/titles-and-heraldry/prince-of-
waless-feathers>.
Proust, Marcel. “Le Côte de Guermantes.” A La Recherche Du Temps Perdu. Paris: Gallimard,
1954. Print.
Rather, Dan, and Walter Isaacson. People of the Century: 100 Men and Women Who Shaped
the Last 100 Years. London: Simon & Schuster, 1999. Print.
Saussure, Ferdinand . Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959.
Print.
Nischa. "Semiotics: Chanel vs Dolce & Gabbana (Wk 3)." Web blog post. The Gift of
Sight. Blogger, 1 Sept. 2010. Web. <http://ninish901.blogspot.com/2010/09/chanel-
versus-dolce-wk-3.html>.
Reilly, Andrew; Goodrum, Alison; Johnson, Kim K. P.. Key Concepts for the Fashion Industry.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. Ebook Library. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
Segal, Lynne, and Mary McIntosh. Sex Exposed: Sexuality and the Pornography Debate. New

Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 1993. Print.

Sessions, Debbie. "What Clothing Cost in the 1920's." Vintage Dancer. Word, 13 June 2013.
Web. 19 Mar. 2015. <http://www.vintagedancer.com/1920s/what-clothing-cost/>.
Shaw, Susan M., and Janet Lee. Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions. 5th ed. New
York: McGraw, 2009. Print.
"Shoulder Ribbons on Dresses." Historical Boys' Clothing. N.p., 18 July 2003. Web.
<http://histclo.com/style/skirted/Dress/lead/ls-rib.html>.

 
   101  

Showalter, E.. 1991 Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin-de-siècle Bloomsbury
London.
Simmel, Georg. Fashion International Quarterly 10 (1904): 130-55. Modedetheorie. Web.
<http://www.modetheorie.de/fileadmin/Texte/s/Simmel-Fashion_1904.pdf>.
Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.
Print.
"State of the World's Birds." BirdLife International. BirdLife Foundation, 2008. Web. 15 Dec.
2014. <http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/94>.
Steele, Valerie. The Corset: A Cultural History. New Haven: Yale Press, 2001. Print.
Steele, Valerie. Fetish: Fashion, Sex, and Power. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Print.
Stewart, Mary Lynn. Dressing Modern Frenchwomen: Marketing Haute Couture, 1919–1939.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2008. Print.
Stover, Laren. "The Return of the Tight Squeeze." The New York Times. The New York Times,
23 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/fashion/Sarah-
A-Chrisman-wears-a-corset-for-a-year-and-writes-a-book.html>.
Stratford, Oli. "Birds of Paradise. Plumes and Feathers in Fashion." DisegnoDaily. Disegno, 20
Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2015. <http://www.disegnodaily.com/article/birds-of-paradise-
plumes-and-feathers-in-fashion>.

Suchy, Kimberly. "Alexander McQueen: Skirting Controversy - Nvate." Nvate. N.p., 19 Oct.
2011. Web. <http://nvate.com/664/alexander-mcqueen-skirting/>.
Thapan, Meenakshi. Gender, Body and Everyday Life. 7/9 ed. Vol. 23. New Delhi: Centre for
Contemporary Studies, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, 1995. 32-58. Print. Jul. -
Sep.
“The Body You Want: Liz Kotz interviews Judith Butler,” Artforum 31, no. 3 (November
1992): 82-89.

 
   102  

The Devil Wears Prada. Dir. David Frankel. Prod. Wendy Finerman. By Aline Brosh
McKenna. Perf. Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, and Stanley Tucci. 20th Century Fox,
2006. DVD.
Tutter, Adele. "Gorgeous Metamorphoses: Alexander McQueen and Francesca
Woodman." Artcritical. Artcritical, 02 Sept. 2011. Web. 16 Jan. 2015.
<http://www.artcritical.com/2011/09/02/draft-gorgeous-metamorphoses/>.
Veblen, Thorstein, and Stuart Chase. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of
Institutions. New York: Modern library, 1934. Print.
Waddell, Gavin. How Fashion Works: Couture, Ready-to-Wear, and Mass Production. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell Science, 2004. Print.
Walmsley, David. "Trickle-Down Theory." The Genteel. The Genteel, 28 Dec. 2011. Web. 21
Mar. 2015. <http://www.thegenteel.com/articles/design/trickle-down-theory>.
Wilhelm, Amara. "Chapter One: Tritiya Prakriti: People of the Third Sex." Tritiya-Prakriti:
People of the Third Sex: Understanding Homosexuality, Transgender Identity, and
Intersex Conditions through Hinduism. Tinucum, PA: Xlibris, 2003. 5. Print.
Williams, Edgar Mark. Ostrich. London: Reaktion, 2013. Print.
Wilson, Bee. "Fierce, Feathered and Fragile: How Alexander McQueen Made Fashion an Art."
The Guardian. The Guardian, 7 Mar. 2015. Web.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbooks%2F2015%2Fmar%2F07%2Ffierce

-feathered-fragile-alexander-mcqueen-life>.
Wilson, Catherine. "Sex In the Wardrobe." New Straits Times [Malaysia] 27 Feb. 1994, 5th ed.,
Fashion sec.: 10-11. Print.
Wilson, Elizabeth 2005, Adorned in Dreams: Fashion and Modernity, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd,
London.
Workman, Nancy V. “From Victorian To Victoria’s Secret: The Foundations Of Modern Erotic
Wear.” Journal Of Popular Culture 30.2 (1996): 61-73. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 10 Apr. 2014.